•o '♦.To' ^0*^ V**^

V.i

.0^

•A . . . •/*

A> « ■ a 'O*

•*0'

%*?^*6** *o.-.,^.'<V* %'^^'\<?^ \^-f>X'

/ -'^^ *--/ .•^''. "W"' •»'•' \/ .-^^

^^0^

»o

.*^' -^

''bv^

^of

-■\/\, V^^V^ "v^'^V^ V^^'V^' ''"''"'

^9^

o_ *

SPEECH

OF

HON. AIRCREW JOHNSON,

I'

OF TENNESSEE,

ON THE

STATE or THE UNION

DELIVERED

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 5 AND 6, 1861.

WASHINGTON:

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE.

1861.

£446

SPEECH.

The Senate liaving under consideration the message of
the President communicating resolutions of the Legisla-
ture of Virginia —

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. Mr. Presiaent,
on the 19th of December, I made a speech in the
Senate, with reference to the present crisis, which
I believed my duty to my State and to myself i
required. In making that speech, my intention — \
and I think I succeeded in it — was to place my-
self upon the principles of the Constitution and I
the doctrines inculcated by Washington, Jeffer- ,
son, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson. Havings
examined the positions of those distinguished j
fathers of the Republic, and compared them with
the Constitution, I came to the conclusion that
they were right; and upon them I planted myself,
and made the speech to which I have referred, in
vindication of the Union and the Constitution,
and against the doctrine of nullification or seces-
sion , which I look upon as a great political heresy.
As far back as 1833, when I was a young man,
before I made my advent into public life, when
the controversy arose between the Federal Gov-
ernment and the State of South Carolina, and it
became necessary for Andrew Jackson , then Pres-
ident of the United States, to issue his proclama-
tion, exhorting that people to obey the law and
comply with the requirements of the Constitu-
tion, I planted myself upon the principles then
announced by him, which I advocated on the 19th
of December last. I believed that the positions
taken then by General Jackson, and those who
came to his support, were the true doctrines of the
Constitution, and the only doctrines upon which
this Government could be preserved. I have been
uniformly, from that period to the present time,
opposed to the doctrine of secession, or of nulli-
fication, which is somewhat of a hermaphrodite,
but approximates to the doctrine of secession. I
repeat, that I then viewed it as a heresy and as an
element which, if maintained, would result in the
destruction of this Government. I maintain the
same position to-day. I then opposed the doc-
trine of secession as a political heresy, which, if
sanctioned and sustained as a fundamental prin-
*

ciple of this Government, will result in its over-
throw and destruction; for, as we have seen al-
ready, a few of the States are crumbling and
falling off.

I oppose this heresy for another reason; not
only as being destriuitive of the existing Govern-
ment, but as being destructive of all future con-
federacies that may be established in consequence
of a disruption of the present one; and I availed
myself of the former occasion on which I spoke,
to enter my protest against it, and to do some-
thing to extinguish a political heresy that ought
never to be incorporated upon this or any other
Government which may be subsequently estab-
lished. I look upon it as the prolific mother of
political sin; as a fundamental error; as a heresy
that is intolerable in contrast with the existence
of the Government itself. 1 look upon it as being
productive of anarchy; and anarchy is the next
step to despotism. The developments that we
have recently seen in carrying this doctrine into
practice, I think, admonish us that this will be the
result.

But, Mr. President, since I made that speech
ou the 19th of December, I have been the peculiar
object of attack. I have been denounced, because
I happened to be the first man south of Mason
and Dixon's line who entered a protest or made
! an argument in the Senate against this political
I heresy. From what I saw here on the evening
when I concluded my speech— although some
may have thought that it intimidated and discour-
aged me — I was inspired with confidence; I felt
that I had struck treason a blow. I thought then,
and I know now, that men who were engaged in
treason felt the blows that I dealt out on that
occasion. As I have been made the peculiar ob-
ject of attack, not only in the Senate, but out of
the Senate, my object on this occasion is to meet
some of these attacks, and to say some things in
addition to what I then said against this move-
ment.

REPLY TO MR. BENJAMIN.

Yesterday the last of the Senators who repre-
sent what are called the seceding States, retired,

and a drama was enacted. The piece \yas well }
performed; the actors were perfect in their parts; :
it was got up to order; I will not say that the
mourning auxiliaries had been selected in advance.
One of the retiring Senators, in justifying the
course that his State had taken, made a very spe-
cious and plausible argument in reference to the ;
doctrine of secession. I allude to the Senator from
Louisiana, [Mr. Benjamin.] He argued that the
sovereignty of that State had never passed to the ,
United States; that the Government held it in
trust; that no conveyance was made; that sover-
eignty could not be transferred; that out of the
gracious pleasure and good will which the First
Consul of France entertained towards the Amer-
ican people, the transfer was made of the property
without consideration, and the sovereignty was
'dn abeyance or trust, and therefore his State
had violated no faith, and had a right to do pre-
cisely what she has done. With elaborate prep-
aration and seeming sincerity; with sweet tones,
euphonious utterances, mellifluous voice, andgreat
earnestness, he called our attention to the treaty
to sustain his assumption. But when we exam-
ine the subject, Mr. President, how do the facts
stand? I like fairness; I will not say that the
Senator, in making quotations from the treaty and
commenting upon them, was intentionally unfair;
nor can I say that the Senator from Louisiana,

French peop4e, desiring to remove all source of miaunder-
standing reiative to objects of discussion," &c.

After reciting the other treaties pending between
France and the United States and Spain, they go
on in the first article as follows:

"And wlieifas, in pursuance of the treaty, and particu-
larly the tliird article, the French Republic has an incon-
testable title to the domain and to the posssssion of the said
territory, [that is, of Louisiana,] the First Consul of the
French Uepublic, desiring to give to the United States a
strong proof of his friendship, doth her(!by cede to the said
United States, in the name of the French Republic, forever
and in full sovereignty, the said territory, with all its rights
and appurtenances, as fully and in the same manner as
they have been acquired by the French Republic, in virtue
of the above mentioned treaty concluded with his Catholic
Majesty."

Which was referred to in the preceding section.
Now, sir, is there not a clear and distinct and ex-
plicit conveyance of sovereignty, of property, of
jurisdiction, of everything that resided in the
First Consul of France, to the people of the Uni-
ted Slates? Clearly and distinctly the jurisdiction
and control of that Government were transmitted
absolutely by the treaty. Why not have read that
part of the treaty first? The second article is in
these words:

"Art. '2. In the cession made by the preceding article,
are included the adjacent islands belonging to Louisiana,
all public lots and squares, vacant lands, and all public
buildings, fortifications, barracks, and other edifices, which

with all his acumen, his habits of industry, and 1 are not priv..te property. The archives, papers, and docu-

his great research, had not read and understood
all the provisions of the treaty. In doing so, I
should reflect upon his character; it might be con-
strued as a reflection upon his want of research,
for which he has such a distinguished reputation.
The omission to read important portions of the
treaty I will not attribute to any intention to mis-
lead; I will simply call the attention of the Senate
and the country to his remarks, and then to the
treaty. The Senator, after premising, went on to
say:

" I have said that the GoverMuient assumed to act as
trustee or guardian of the people of the ceded province, and
covenanted to transfer to them the sovereignty thus held in
trust for their use and benefit, as soon as they were capa-
ble of e.\ercising it. What is the express language of the
treaty?"

He then read the third article of the treaty of
cession of Louisiana, which provides merely for
their incorporation into the United States; their
protection in the enjoyment of their religion, &c.;
and thus he commented on it:

" And, sir, as if to mark the true nature of the cession
in a matmer too significant to admit of misconstruction,
the treaty stipulates no price ; and the sole consideration
for the conveyance, as stated on its face, is the desire to
alford a strong proof of the friendship of France for the
United States. By the terms of a separate convention stip-
ulating the payment of a sum of money, the precaution is
again observed of stating that the payment is to be made,
not as a consideration, or a price, or a condition precedent
of the cession, but it is carefully distinguished as being a
consequence of the cession."

Now, Mr. President, to make this matter more
intelligible, and better understood by the country,
it seems to me it would have been better to read
the first article of the treaty, which commences
thus:

" The President of the United States of America, and the
Fim Consul of the French Kepublic, in the name of the

ments, relative to the doniainandsovereignty of Louisiana
and its dependencies, will be left in the possession of the
commissaries of the United States, and copies will be
afterwards civen in due form to the magistrates and muni-
cipal officers of such of the said papers" and documents as
may be necessary to them."

We see, then, in the first article, that property
and sovereignty were all conveyed together, in
clear and distinct terms. If there was a power
residing anywhere to control the people and the
property of Louisiana, it was in the First Consul
of France, who conveyed absolutely the sover-
eignty and right of property to the people of the
United States. Then we come to the third article,
which the Senator read yesterday:

" Art. 3. The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be
incorporated in the Union of the United States, and ad-
mitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of
the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights,
advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States;
and, in the mean time, they shall be maintained and pro-
tected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and
the religion which they profess."

There is some order in that; one thing fits the
other. There is the conveyance of sovereignty
and property. There is a minute enumeration in
the second article; and in the third article it is
provided that as soon as possible, according to the
principles of the Federal Constitution, they shall
be incorporated into the Union, and protected in
the enjoyment of the religion which they may
profess. We see, then, how the thing stands.
Have not all these things been complied with ? But,
by way of exonerating Louisiana from censure
for her recent act of attempted secession, it is
urged that, when this treaty was made, there was
no consideration; but that, out of the good will
that the First Consul had towards the American
people, the sovereignty was given to us in trust;
that we took the property in trust; that we took

fore they are excusable and justifiable in going
out of the Confederacy of these States.

And then an appeal was made. It was a very
affecting scene. Louisiana was gone; and what
was the reason.' Great oppression and great
wrong. She could not get her rights in the Union ,
and consequently she has sought them out of it.
Whatarethe wrongs of Louisiana.' What was the
cause for all the sympathy expressed on the one
hand , and the tears shed on the other .' Louisiana
was presented to the country in a most pathetic and
sympathetic attitude. Her wrongs were without
number; their enormity was almost without esti-
mate; they could scarcely be fathomed by human
sympathy. It was not unlike the oration o.f Mark
Antony over the dead body of Caesar. Weeping
friends grouped picturesquely in the foreground;
the bloody robe, the ghastly wounds, were con-
jured to the imagination; and who was there that
did not expect to hear the exclamation: " If you
have tears, prepare to shed them now.'" [Laugh-
ter.]

Sir, what are the great wrongs that have been
inflicted upon Louisiana.' Prior to 1803, Louis-
iana was transferred from Spain to France, and
from France back to Spain — both property and
sovereignty — almost with the same facility as a
chattel from one person to another. On the 30th
of April, 1803, when this treaty was made, what
was the condition of Louisiana.' It was then a
What becomes of the specious plea that we took , province of the First Consul of France, subject to
it simply in trust, and that no consideration was ; i be disposed of at his discretion. The United
paid.' Turn over to the American State Papers; tl Slates came forward and paid to the First Consul
look at Mr. Livingston's letters,upon which these jj of France 60,000,000f. for the territory. The treaty
treaties were predicated; read his correspondence h ^as made; the territory was transferred; and in
with Mr. Madison, who was Secretary of State, I [ 1806, in express compliance with the treaty, as
and you will find that France demanded the sum of j ' soon as practicable, according to the terms of the
100,000,000f. independent of what they owed the , Federal Constitution, Louisiana was admitted into
citizens of the United States; but after long nego- 1 \ the Union as a State. We bought her; we paid for

everything in trust. Sir, the Federal Government
took the property, and the sovereignty with it, in
trust for all the States. The retiring Senator's
speech — whether it was intended or not, I do not
undertake to say — is calculated to make the false
impression that some time afterwards, perhaps in
some other treaty remote from that, some money
was paid by the United States to France, out of
the good will that this Government had towards
them. And yet, sir, on the same day — the 30th of
April, 1803 — on which the other treaty was made
and signed, the following convention between the
United States of America and the French Republic
was made:

" The President of the United States of America, and the
First Consul of the French Republic, in the name of the
French people, in consequence of the treaty of cession of
Louisiana, which has been sijined this day, wishing to reg-
ulate definitely everything wliich has relation to tlie said
cession."

This, be it observed, was made on the same day,
and was, perhaps, written out before the other
treaty was signed. And what does the first article
say.' It says expressly:

"Art. 1. Tlie Government of the United States engages
to pay to tlie French Government, in the manner specified
in tlie following article, the sum of sixty million francs,
independent of the sum which shall be fixed by another
convention for the payment of debts due by France to the
citizens of the United States."

tiations, the First Consul of the French concluded
to take 60,000,000f.; and the first two articles of
the treaty which I have read are based upon the
60,000, OOOf. paid by this Government in consid-
eration of the sovereignty and territory, all of

her; we admitted her into the Union upon terms of
equality with the other States. Was there any
oppression, any great wrong, any grievance in
that .'

In 1815 — war havino: been declared in 1812 —

which was to be held in trust by the United States j ! Louisiana was attacked; the city of New Orleans
for all the States. ' was about to be sacked and laid prostrate in the

This was given to us out of the pure good willli dust; " beauty and booty "were the watchwords,
that Napoleon at that time had towards the Uni- j She was oppressed then, was she not.' Kentucky,
'"■■■" ■ " ^ ^ ■ I y^^^i^. Q^jj gallant State, sir, (and, thank God !

ted States! Sir, he had great hate for Great Brit-
ain; and by the promptings of that hate he was
disposed to cede this territory to some other
Power. He feared that Great Britain, whose

she is standingerectnow,) and Tennessee, (which,
as I honestly believe, will ever stand by her side
in this struggle for the Constitution and the Union,)

Navy was superior to his own, would take it. He ! ! in conjunction with the other States, met Pack-
desired to obtain money to carry on his wars and ' enham and his myrmidonsupon the plains of New
sustain his Government. These considerations, I \ Orleans, and there dealt out death and desolation
and not love or partiality or friendship for the Uni- jj to her invading foe. What soil did we invade.'
ted States, led him to make the cession. Then what 1 1 What city did we propose to sack .' Whose prop-
becomesoftheSenator's special pleading.' From I erty did we propose to destroy.' Was not Lou-
the Senator's remarks, it may have been concluded ' isiana there gallantly, nobly, bravely, and patri-
that we got it as a gratuity. But after examining ]' otically defended, by the people of the United
theStatePapers and the correspondence, and look-|l States, from the inroads and from the sacking of

ingat the tedious and labored negotiation previous
to the making of the treaty, it is clear that at the
time the first treaty was m:ide, on the very same
day, the consideration was fixed; and yetthe Sen-

a British foe .' Is that defense one of her oppres-
sions .' Is that one of the great wrongs that have
been inflicted upon Louisiana.'

What more has been done by tliis Govern-

ators tell us that at some other time a treaty was ' ment.' How much protection has she received
made not referring to anyamount of money agreed [■ upon hersugar.' In orderto give that protection,
to be paid at this particular time, and that there- '. the poorest man throughout the United States is

6

taxed for every spoonful that he uses to sweeten
his coffee. How many millions, under the oper-
ation of a protection upon sugar, have been con-
tributed to the wealth and prosperity of Louis-
iana since she has been in this Confederacy?
Estimate them. Is this another of her wrongs ?
Is this another of her grievances ? Is this another
of the oppressions that the United States have in-
flicted upon Louisiana.'

Sum them all up, and what are the wrongs,
"what the grievances which justify Louisiana in
taking leave of the United States ? We have de-
fended her soil and her citizens; we have paid the
price asked for her by the French Government;
she has been protected in the production of her
sugar, and in the enjoyment of every right that a
sovereign State could ask at the hands of the
Federal Government. And how has she treated
the United States? What is her position? Upon
her own volition, without consultation with her
sister States, without even consulting with Ten-
nessee and Kentucky, who defended her when
she was in peril, she proposes to secede from the
Union. She does more: in violation of the Con-
stitution of the United States, in despite of the
plighted faith that exists between all the States,
she takes our arsenals, our forts, our custom-
house, our mint, with about a million dollars.
Gracious God ! to what are we coming ? Is it
thus that the Constitution of the United States is
to be violated ? Forts, arsenals, custom-houses,
and property belonging to all the people of all
the States, have been ruthlessly seized, and their
undisturbed possession is the sum total of the
great wrongs that have been inflicted upon Loui-
siana by the United States!

Mr. President, when I look at the conduct of
some of the States, I am reminded of the fable of
King Log and the frogs. They got tired of the
log that lay in their midst, upon which they could
bask in the sun, or from which they could dive
to the depth beneath, without interference. And
these seceding States have got tired of the Fed-
eral Government, which has been so profitable
to them, and loathe the blessings which they
enjoy. Seemingly, its inability to take care of
itself created their opposition to it. It seems,
the inability of the United States to defend and
take care of its own property has been an invita-
tion to them to take possession of it; and, like
the frogs, they seek a substitute for their log.
They prayed to Jupiter, the supreme deity, to
send them another king; and he answered their
prayer by sending them a stork, who soon de-
voured his subject frogs. There are storks, too,
in the seceding States. South Carolina has her
stork king, and so has Louisiana. In the heavy
appropriations they are making to maintain armies,
and in all their preparations for war, for which
there is no cause, they will find they have brought
down storks upon them that will devour them.

What do we find, Mr. President, since this
movement commenced? In about forty-six days,
since the first State went out until the last one dis-
appeared— the 26th of January — they have taken
from the United States, thisharmlessold ruler, six-
teen forts and one thousand and ninety-two guns,
without any resistance, amounting to $0,513,000.

They are very much alarmed at the power of this
Government. Thus the Government oppresses
them; thus this Government oppresses Louisiana,
pertinaciously y^ersisting in allowing those States
to take all the guns, all the forts, all the arsenals, all
the dock-yards, all the custom-houses, and all the
mints. Thus they are so cruelly oppressed. Is
it not a farce? Is it not the greatest outrage and
the greatest folly that was ever consummated since
man was spoken into existence ? But these are
the grievances of Louisiana. I shall say nothing
against Louisiana. Tennessee and Kentucky have
given demonstrations most noticeable that when
she needed friends, when she needed aid, they were
at her bidding.

But with Louisiana there was another very im-
portant acquisition. We acquired the exclusive
and entire control of the navigation of the Missis-
sippi river. We find that Louisiana, in her ordi-
nance of secession , makes the negative declaration
that she has the control of the navigation of that
great stream, by stating that the navigation of the
river shall be free to those States that remain on
friendly terms with her, with the proviso that mod-
erate contributions are to be levied to defray such
expenses as they may deem expedient from time
to time. That is the substance of it. Sir, look at
the facts. All the States, through their Federal
Government, treated for Louisiana. The treaty
was made. All the States, by the contribution of
their money, paid for Louisiana and the naviga-
tion of the Mississippi river. Where, and from
what source, does Louisiana now derive the power
or the authority to secede from this Union and set
up exclusive control of the navigation of that great
stream which is owned by all the States, which
was paid for by the money of all the States, and
upon whose borders the blood of many citizens of
the States has been shed ?

This is one of the aggrieved, the oppressed
States! Mr. President, is it not apparent that
these grievances and oppressions are mere pre-
tenses? A large portion of the South (and that
portion of it I am willing to stand by to the very
last extremity) believe that aggressions have been
made upon them by the other States, in reference
to the institution of slavery. A large portion of
the South believe that something ought to be done
in the shape of what has been offered by the dis-
tinguished Senator from Kentucky, or something
very similar. They think and feel that that ought
to be done. But, su-, there is another portion who
do not care for those propositions to bring about
reconciliation, but who, on the contrary, have
been afraid and alarmed that something would be
done to reconcile and satisfy the public mind, be-
fore this diabolical work of secession could be
consummated. Yes, sir, they have been afraid,
and the occasion has been used to justify and to
carry into practice a doctrine which will be not
only the destruction of this Government, but the
destruction of all other governments that may be
originated, embracing the same principle. Why
not, then, meet it like men ? We know there is a
portion of the South who are for secession, who are
for breaking up this Government, without regard
to slavery or anything else, as I shall show before
I have done.

The Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. Benjamin,] |
in a speech that he made some days since, took oc- ]
casion to allude to some authority that I had intro- j
duced from General "Washington, the first Presi-
dent who executed the laws of the United States
against armed resistance; and it occurred to him
that, by way of giving his argument force, it was
necessary to remark that I was not a lawyer, and
that therefore I had not examined the subject with
that minuteness and with that care and familiarity
that I should have done; and hence that I had
introduced authority which had no application to
the question under consideration. The proof that
he gave to show that I had not examined the sub-
ject carefully, was contained in the very extract
that I had quoted and which he said declared that
General Washington had been informed by the
marshal that he could not execute the laws; and
from the fact of the marshal being incapable to
execute them. General Washington was called
upon to employ the means, under the Constitution
and the laws, which were necessary to their en-
forcement. It may have been necessary for the
distinguished Senator to inform the Senate and
the country that I was not a lawyer; but it was
not necessary to inform anybody that read his
speech and that had the slightest information or
sagacity, that he was a lawyer, and that he was
making a lawyer's speech upon the case before
him; not an argument upon the great principles
of the Government. The speech was a complete
lawyer's speech, the authorities were summed up
simply to make out the case on his side; and he
left out all those that would disprove his position.

That Senator yesterday seemed to be very seri-
ous in regard to the practical operation of the
doctrine of secession. I felt sorry myself, some-
what. I am always reluctant to part with a gen-
tleman with whom I have been associated, and
nothing had transpired to disturb between us those
courteous relations which should always exist be-
tween persons associated on this floor. I thought
the scene was pretty well got up, and was acted
out admirably. The plot was executed to the
very letter. You would have thought that his
people in Louisiana were borne down and seri-
ously oppressed by remaining in this Union of
States. Now, I have an extract before me, from
a speech delivered by that gentleman since the
election of Abraham Lincoln, while the distin-
guished Senator was on the western slope of the
Rocky Mountains, at the city of San Francisco.
He was called upon to make an address; and I
will read an extract from it, which I find in the
New York Times, the editors of which paper said
they had the speech before them; and I have con-
sulted a gentleman here who was in California at
the time, and he tells me that the report is correct.
In that speech — after the Senator had spoken some
time with his accustomed eloquence — he uttered
this language:

" Those who prate of, and strive to dissolve this glorious
Confederacy of States, are like those silly savagi-s who W.t
fly their arrows at the sun in the vain hope of piercing it !
And still the sun rolls on, unheeding, in its eternal path-
way, shedding light and animation upon all the world."

Even after Lincoln was elected, the Senator
from Louisiana is reported to have said, in the

State of California, and in the city of San Fran-
cisco, that this gi-eat Union could not be destroyed.
Those great and intolerable oppressions, of which
we have since heard from him, did not seem to be
flitting across liis vision and playing upon his
mind with that vividness and clearness which
were displayed here yesterday. He said, in Cal-
ifornia, that this great Union would go on in its
course, notwithstanding the puny efforts of the
silly savages that were letting fly their arrows with
the prospect of piercing it. What has changed
the Senator's mind on coming from that side of
the continent to this? What light has broken in
upon him ? Has he been struck on his way, like
Paul, when he was journeying from Tarsus to
Damascus.' Has some supernatural power dis-
closed to him that his State and his people will be
ruined if they remain in the Union? Where do
we find the distinguished Senator only at the last
session? On the 22d of May, last, when he
made his celebrated reply to the Senator from Illi-
nois, [Mr. Douglas,] the Senator from Louisi-
ana, alluding to the contest for the Senate, be-
tween Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Douglas, said:

"In that contest, the two candidates for the Senate of the
United States, in the State of Illinois, went before their
people. They agreed to discuss the issues ; they put ques-
tions to each other for answer ; and I must say here — for
I must be just to all— that I have been surprised in the
examination that I made again, within the last few days,
of this discussion between Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Douglas,
to find that, on several points, Mr. Lincoln is a far more
conservative man, unless he has since changed his opinion,
than I had supposed him to be. There was no dodging on
his part. Mr. Douglas started with his questions. Here
they are, with Mr. Lincoln's answers."

The impression evidently made on the public
mind then, before the presidential election, was
that Lincoln, the rank Abolitionist now, was more
conservative than Mr. Douglas; and he said fur-
ther, after reading the questions put by Mr. Lin-
coln, and his answers to them:

" It is impossible, Mr. President, however we may differ
in opinion with the man, not to admire the perfect candor
and frankness with which the answers were given ; no
equivocation; no evasion."

Since that speech was made, since the Senator
has traversed from California to this point, the
gi-ievances, the oppressions of Louisiana, have
become so great that she is justified in going out
of the Union, taking into her possession the cus-
tom-house, the mint, the navigation of the Mis-
sissippi river, the forts, and arsenals. Where are
we? " Oh, consistency, thou art a jewel, much
to be admired, but rarely to be found,."

Mr. President, I never do things by halves. I
am against this doctrine entirely. I commenced
making war upon it — a war for the Constitution
and the Union— and I intend to sink or swim upon
it. [Applause in the galleries.] In the remarks
that I made on the 19th of December, I discussed
at some length the alleged right of secession, I
repudiated the whole doctrine. I introduced aii-
thorities to show its unsoundness, and made de-
ductions from those authorities which have not
been answered to this day; but by innuendo and
indirection, without reference to the person who
used the authorities, attempts have been made to
answer the speech. Let those who can, answer
the speech, answer the authorities, answer the

8

conclusions which have been deduced from them.
I was more than gratified , shortly afterwards, when
one of the distinguished Senators from Virginia
[Mr. Hunter] delivered a speech upon this floor,
which it was apparent to all had been studied
closely, which had been digested thoroughly;
•which, in the language of another, had been conned
and set down in a note-book, and got by rote;
not only the sentences constructed, but the lan-
guage measured. In the plan which he proposed
as one upon which the Government can be con-
tinued and administered, in his judgment, he
brought his mind seemingly, irresistibly, to the
conclusion that this doctrine of secession was a
heresy. What does he say in that able, that
methodical, that well-digested speech ? He goes
over the whole ground. He has been reasoning
on it; he has been examining the principle of seces-
sion; he has gone to the conclusion to which it
leads; and he is seemingly involuntarily, but irre-
sistibly forced to admit that it will not do to ac-
knowledge this doctrine of secession; for he says:

"I have pri'sented this scheme. Mr. President, as one
which, in uiy opinion, would adjust tlie differences lietween
the two social systems, and which would protect each from
the assault of the other. If this were done, so that we were
made mutually safe, I, for one, would be willing to regu-
late the right of secession, which I hold to be a right not
given in the Constitution, but resulting from the nature of
the compact. I would provide that before a State seceded,
it should summon a convention of the States in the section
to which it belonged, and submit to them a statement of
its grievances and wrongs. Should a majority of the States
in such a convention decide the complaint to be well
founded, then the State ought to be permitted to secede in
peace. For, whenever a m.^jority of States in an entire
section shall declare that good cause for secession exists,
then who can dispute that it ought to take place ? Should
they say, however, that no good cause e.xisted, then the
moral force of such a decision, on the part of confederates
of those who are bound to the complaining State by iden-
tical and homogeneous interests, would prevent it from
prosecuting the claim any further."

Sir, I quoted the Old Dominion extensively be-
fore. I took the foundation of this doctrine and
traced it along step by step, and showed that there
was no such notion tolerated by the fathers of the
Republic as the right of secession. Now, who
comes up to my relief.' When the States are se-
ceding, the distinguished Senator from Virginia!
says, in so many words, that he admits the error,]
and the force of the principle that a State ougiit
not to be permitted to go out of the Confederacy
without the consent of the remaining members.
He says, however, that the right to secede results
from the nature of the compact. Sir, I have read
Mr. Jefferson, and I am as much inclined to rely
on the former distinguished men of the State of
Virginia as 1 am on the latter. In the old Articles
of Confederation, when the revenue required for
the support of the Federal Governnnent was appor-
tioned among the States, and each State had to
raise its portion, the great difficulty was, that there
was no means by which the States could be coin-
pelled to contribute their amount; there was no
means of forcing the State to compliance; and yet
Mr. Jefferson J in view of that very difficulty, said ,
in 1786:

" It has been often said that the decisions of Congress
are impotent, because the Confederation provides no com-
pulsory power. But when two or more nations enter into
compact, it is not u^ual for them to say what shall be done

to the party who infringes it. Decency forbids this, and it
is as unnecessary as indecent; because the right of com-
pulsion naturally results to the party injured by the breach.
When any one State in the American Union refuses obe-
dience to the Confederation by which they have bound
themselves, the rest have a natural right to compel them to
obedience.''

The Senator from Virginia says a State has the
right to secede from the Union, and that it is a
right resulting from the nature of the compact;
but Mr. Jefferson said that even under the old
Articles of Confederation, no Slate had a right to
refuse obedience to the Confederacy, and that
there was a right to enforce its compliance:

" Congress would probably exercise long patience before
they would recur to force; but if the case ultimately re-
quired it, they would use that recurrence. Should this
case ever arise, they will probably coerce by a naval force,
as being more easy, less dangerous to liberty, and less likely
to produce much bloodshed." — Jefferson's Works, vol. 9,
p. 291.

When was this .' I have stated that it was un-
der the old Articles of Confederation, when there
was no power to compel a State even to contrib-
ute her proportion of the revenues; but in that
view of the case, Mr. Jefferson said that the in-
jured party had a right to enforce compliance with
the compact from the offending State, and that
this was a right deducible from the laws of nature.
The present Constitution was afterwards formed;
and to avoid this difficulty in raising revenue, the
power was conferred upon the Congress of the
United States "to lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts, and excises," and the Constitution cre-
ated a direct relation between the citizen and the
Federal Government in that matter, and to that
extent that relation is just as direct and complete
between the Federal Government and the citizen
as is the relation between the State and the citi-
zen in other matters. Hence we find that, by
an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, the citizen cannot even make a State a
party to a suit, and bring her into the Federal
courts. They wanted to avoid the difficulty of
coercing a State, and the Constitution conferred
on the Federal Government the power to operate
directly upon the citizen, instead of operating on
the States. It being the right of the Government
to enforce obedience from the citizen in those mat-
ters of which it has jurisdiction, the question
comes up as to the exercise of this right. It may
not always be expedient. It must depend upon
discretion, as was eloquently said by the Senator
from Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden] on one occa-
sion. It is a matter of discretion, even as Mr.
Jefferson laid it down before this provision ex-
isted in the Constitution, before the Government
had power to collect its revenue as it now has. I
know that when , on a former occasion , I undertook
to show, as I thought I did show, clearly and dis-
tinctly, the difference between the existence and
the exercise of this power, words were put into
my mouth that I did not utter, and positions an-
swered which I had never assumed. It was said
that I took the bold ground of coercing a State. I
expressly disclaimed it. I stated, in my speech,
that, by the Constitution, we could not put a State
into court; but I said there were certain relations
created by the Constitution between the Federal
Government and the citizen, and that we could

9

enforce those laws against the citizen. I took up
the fugitive slave law, I lookup the revenue law;
I took up the judicial system; 1 took up the post
office system ; and I might have taken up the power
to coin money and to punish counterfeiters, or the
power to pass laws to punish mail robbers. 1
showed that under these we had power, not to
punish a State, but to punish individuals as vio-
lators of the law. Who will deny it; who can
deny it, that acknowledges the existence of the
Government? This point, I think, was settled in
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Ableman vs. Booth. When the decision of the
Supreme Court is in our favor, we are very much
for it; but sometimes we are not so well reconciled
to it when it is against us. In that case the court
decided:

" But, as we hnva already said, questions of lliis kind
must always depc^nd upon the Constitution and laws of the
United States, and not of a State. The Constitution was
not formed merely to guard the States against danger from
foreign nations, but mainly to secure union andliannony at
home ; for if this object could be obtained, there would be
but little danger from abroad ; and to accomplish this pur-
pose, it was felt hy the statesmen who framed the Constitu-
tion, and by the people who adopted it, that it was neces-
sary that many of the rights of sovereignty which the States
then possessed should be ceded to the General Government ;
and that, in the sphere of action assigned to it, it should be
supreme, and strong enough to execute its own laws by its
own tribunals, without interruption from a State or from
State authorities. And it was evident that anything short
of this would be inadequate to the main objects for which
the Government was established ; and that local interests,
local passions or prejudices, incited and fostered by indi-
viduals for sinister purposes, would lead to acts of aggres-
sion and injustice by one State upon the rights of another,
which would ultimately terminate in violence and force,
unless there was a common arbiter between them, armed
with power enough to protect ami guard tlie rights of all,
by appropriate laws, to be carried into execution peacefully
by its judicial tribunals." — Howard's Supreme Court Re-
ports, vol. 21, p. S16.

When the fugitive slave law was executed in
the city of Boston, by the aid of military force,
■was that understood to be coercing a State, or was
it simply understood to be an enforcement of the
lawupon those who,it was assumed, had violated
it.' In this same decision the Supreme Court de-
clare that the fugitive slave law, in all its details,
is constitutional,and therefore should be enforced.
Who is prepared to say that the decision of the
court shall not be carried out.' Who is prepared
to say that the fugitive slave law shall not be en-
forced? Do you coerce a State when you simply
enforce the law? If one man robs the mail and
you seek to arrest him, and he resists, and you
employ force, do you call thatcoercion? If aman
counterfeits your coin, and is arrested and con-
victed, and punishment is resisted, cannot you
execute the law? It is true thatsometimes so many
may become infected with disobedience, outrages
and violations of law may be participated in by so
many, that they get beyond the control of the
ordinary operations of law; the disaffection may
swell to such proportions as to be toogreat for the
Government to control; and then it becomes a
matter of discretion, not a matter of constitutional
right.

In this connection, I desire to introduce an au-
thority from Virginia, for I do delight in author-
ity from the Old Dominion; and from the indica-
tions that are now visible — although it is possible

: that before the setting of the sun I may receive
news that will convert my present hopes and my
present exhilarated feeling.s into despair — she is
going to make a stand for the Union and the Con-
stitution. I delight in calling upon her for author-

[ ity. The doctrine that I am trying to inculcate

I here to-day was the doctrine of Virginia in 1814;
and I ask my friend from California to read an ex-

: tract which I have from the Richmond Enquirer

I of the 1st of November, 1814.

Mr. LATHAM read, as follows:

" The Troe Question.— TAe Union is in danger. Turn
j to the convention of Hartford, and learn to tremble at the
I madness of its autliors. How far will those madmen ad-
j vance ? Though they may conceal from you the project of
i disunion, though a few of them may have even concealed
1 It from themselves, yet who will pretend to set bounds to
: the rage of disaffection .' One false step after another may
lead them to resistance to the laws, to a treasonable neu-
trality, to a war against the Government of the United
States. In truth, the tirst act of resistance to the law is
treason to the TJnitcd States. Are you ready for this state
j of things? Will you support the men who would plunge
; you into this ruin ?

I " No man, no association of men, no State or set of States
j has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own
accord. The same power which knit us together, can only
unknit. The same formality which forged the links of the
Union, is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States
which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of
C7ii/ortebranchof it. Until iAni consent has been obtained,
any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficacy
of its constitutional laws, is treason — treason to all intents
and purposes.

"Any other doctrine, such as that which has been lately
held forth by the Federal Republican, that any one State
may withdraw itself from the Union, is an abominable
heresy — which strips its author of every possible preten-
sion to the name or character of a Federalist.

" We call, therefore, upon the Government of the Union,
to exert its energies, when the season shall demand it — and
seize the first traitor who shall spring out of the hotbed of
the convention of Hartford. This illustrious Union, whicli
has been cemented by the blood of our forefathers, the
pride of America and the wonder of the world, must not
be tamely sacrificed to the heated brains or the aspiring
hearts of a few malcontents. Tiie Union must be saved,
when any one shall dare to assail it.

'■ Countrymen of the East ! we call upon you to keep a
vigilant eye upon those wretched men who would plunge
us into civil war and irretrievable disgrace. Whatever be
the temporary calamities which may assail us, let us swear,
upon the altar of our country, to save the Union."

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. Mr. Presi-
dent, I subscribe most heartily to the sentiment
presented by the Richmond Enquirer of Novem-
ber 1, 1814. Then it was declared by that high
authority that the Union was to be saved; that
those persons who were putting themselves in op-
position to the law were traitors, and that their
treason should be punished as such. Now, sir,
what is treason? The Constitution of the United
States defines it, and narrows it down to a very
small compass. The Constitution declares that
" treason against the United States shall consist
only in levying war against them, or in adhering
to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Who are levying war upon the United States?
Who are adhering to the enemies of the United
States, giving them aid and comfort ? Does it re-
quire a man to take the lantern of Diogenes, and
make a diligent search to find those who have been
engaged in levying war against the United States ?
Will it require any very great research or obser-
vation to discover the adherents of those who are
making war against the United States, and giving

10

them aid and comfort? If there are any such in
the United States they ought to be punished accord-
ing to law and the Constitution. [Apphiuse inthe
galleries, which was suppressed by the Presiding
Officer, Mr. Fitch in the chair.] Mr. Ritchie,
speaking for the Old Dominion, used language that
was unmistakable: "The treason springing out
of the hot-bedof the Hartford convention should
punished." It was all right to talk about trea-
son then; it was all right to punish traitors in that
direction. For myself, I care not whether treason
be committed north or south; he that is guilty of
treason deserves a traitor's fate.

But, Mr. President, when we come to examine
the views of some of those who have been engaged
in this work, we find that the foundation of their
desire to break up this Government dates beyond,
and goes very far back of, any recent agitation of
the slavery question. There are some men who
want to break up this Government anyhow; who
want a separation of the Union. There are some
"who have got tired of a government brj the people.
They fear the people. Take the State of South
Carolina. Although she has had Senators on this
floor who have acted a portion of the time with
the Democratic party, and sometimes with no
party, there is, in that State, an ancient and a fixed
opposition to a government by the people. They
have an early prejudice against this thing called
democracy — a government of the people. They
entertained the idea of secession at a very early
day ; it is no new idea with them ; it has not arisen
out of the slavery question and its recentagitation.
Even to this good day, the people, the freemen
of South Carolina, have never been permitted to
vote for President and Vice President of the Uni-
ted States. They have never enjoyed that great
luxury of freemen , of having a voice in the selec-
tion of their Chief Magistrate.

I have before me an old volume. In the front-
ispiece I find a picture of " William Moultrie,
Esq., Inte Governor of South Carolina, and major
generalin the American revolutionary war." The
book is entitled, " Memoirs of the American Rev-
olution, so far as it related to the States of Noi"th
and South Carolina and Georgia;" and the author
is William Moultrie. The Articles of Confeder-
ation, it will be remembered, were adopted July
9, 1778. South Carolina v/as one of the mem-
bers of the Confederacy — a party to the compact.
Charleston was besieged during the revolutionary
war, in 1770, by the British. The defense of the
town had been kept up for a considerable length
of time, and at last General Moultrie sent a mes-
sage to the British commander, desiring to know
"on what terms he would be disposed to grant a
capitulation." The answer of General Provost
was submitted to the Governor, who summoned
a council of war, and the result was the follow-
ing message to the British commander:

Charlestown, May 12, 1779.
Sir: I cannot possibly apree to so dishonorable a propo-
sal as is contained in your favor of yesterday ; hut if you
will appoint an officer to confer on terms, 1 will send one
to meet liiin, at such time and place as you lix on.
I have the honor to be, &c.,

V/ILLIAM MOULTRIE, j
Brigadier General Provost. j

This is to be found on pages 431 and 432 of
Moultrie's Memoirs. On the latter page he says:

" When tlie question was carried for giving up the town
upon a neutrality, I will not say who was for the question ;
but this I well remember, that Mr. John Edwards, one of
the Privy Council, a worthy citizen,anda very respectable
merchant of Charlestown, was so affected as to weep, and
said, ' What ! are we to give up the town at last.-" "

He says that he endeavored to get a message
carried from the Governor and Council to General
Provost. Those to whom he applied begged' to
be excused; but finally he pressed them into a
compliance. The message was:

" To propose a neutrality during the war between Great
Britain and America, and the question whether the State
shall belong to Great Britain, or remain one of the United
States, be determined by the treaty of peace between those
two Powers."

The Governor, it seems, proposed a neutrality;
proposed to withdraw from the Confederacy, to
desist from resistance to Great Britain, and leave
it to the two Powers, in making a treaty, to say
whether they should remain a colony of Great
Britain or be one of the United States. Jit this
early day, South Carolina loas willing to go back and
be subjected to the Crown of Great Britaiii under
King George III.

Mr. WIGFALL. I ask the Senator merely to
permit me to correct him as to a fact.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I do not yield
the floor.

Mr. WIGFALL. I do not intend to interrupt
you

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I do not yield
the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Fitch.)
The Senator from Tennessee is entitled to the
floor.

Mr. WIGFALL. The Articles of Confedera-
tion were formed in 1781; that is all.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennesfsee. I have them
before me: "Articles of Confederation and Per-
petual Union;" and they end: "Done at Phila-
delphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, the 9th day
of July, in the year of our Lord 1778."

Mr. WIGFALL. They were ratified in 1781.
If you will read history and inform yourself, you
will not fall into so many errors: 1781 is the
time; I know it.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I will just refer
to the document.

Mr. WIGFALL. While the Senator is look-
ing over it, I will merely observe that I made the
correction out of kindness to him.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I always pre-
fer having correct ideas, and selecting my own
sources of information. [Laughter.]

Mr. WIGFALL. The year 1781 was the time
the Articles of Confederation were ratified. You
were simply mistaken; that is all.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I donotaccept
the correction, nor have I very much respect for
the motive that prompted it. Let that be as it may^
liowever, it docs not change the great historical
fact that at that day, instead of holding out with
the other colonies who were members of the Con-
federacy and engaged in the war. South Carolina
was willing to enter into an agreement of neu-
trality and go back under the protection of King

11

George III. I have another document that I wish tn
read from; a book called " The Remembrancer, or
Impartial Repository of Public Events for the
year 1780." In that year the peo[)le of Charles-
ton, a large number of them, in view of the dif-
ficulties then upon the country, prepared an ad-
dress, which I ask my friend from California, who
reads so much better than I do, to read for me.
Mr. LATHAM read, as follows:

To their Excellencies, Sir Henry Clinton, Kni«ht of
the Bath, General of his Majestj/'s forces, and Mariot
Arburthnot, Esq., Vice Jldmiral of the Blue, his Ma-
jesty's Commissioners to restore peace and good govern-
ment in the several colonies inrebcilionin North America:
The humble address of divers inhabitants of Charles-
town :

The inliabilants ofCliarlestown, by the articles of capit-
ulation, are declared prisoners of war on parole; but we,
the underwritten, having every inducement to return to
our allegiance, and ardently hoping speedily to be read-
mitted to the character and condition of Uritish subjects,
take this opportunity of tendering to your Excellencies our
warmest congratulations on the restoration of this capital
and province to their political connection with the Crown
and Government of Great Britain ; an event which will add
luster to your Excellencies' characters, and, we trust, en-
title you to the most distinguishing mark of the royal favor.
Although the rightof taxing America in Parliament excited
considerable ferment in the minds of the people of this
province, yet it may, with a religious adherence to truth, be
affirmed that they did not entertain the most distant thought
of dissolving the union that so happily subsisted between
them and their parent country ; and when, in the progress of
that fatal controversy, the doctrine of independency (which
originated in the more northern colonies) made its appear-
ance among us, our nature revolted at the idea, and we look
back with the most painful regret on those convulsions that
gave existence to a power of subverting a constitution for
which we always had, and ever shall r(!tain, the most pro-
found veneration, and substituting in its stead a rank de-
mocracy, which, however carefully digested in theory, on
being reduced into practice has exhibited a system of ty-
rannic domination only to be tound among the uncivilized
part of mankind or in the history of the dark and barbarous
ages of antiquity.

We sincerely lament that, after the repeal of those stat-
utes which gave rise to the troubles in America, the over-
tures made by liis Majesty's Commissioners, from time to
time, were not regarded by our late rulers. To tbis fatal
inattention are to be attributed those calamities which have
involved our country in a state of misery and ruin from
which, however, we trust it will soon emerge, by the
wisdom and clemency of his Majesty's auspicious Govern-
ment, and the intiucncesof prudential laws, adapted to the
nature of the evils we labor under; and that the people will
be restored to those privileges, in the enjoyment whereof
their former felicity consisted.

Animated with these hopes, we entreat your Excellen-
cies' interposition in assuring his Majesty that we shall
glory in every occasion of manifesting that zeal and affec-
tion for his person and Government with which gratitude
can inspire a free and joyful people.
Charlestown, June 5, 1780.

[Signed by two hundred and ten of the principal inhab-
itants.]— The Remembrancer, part 2, 1780; page 84.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. It will be seen ,
from these two documents, what the early notions
of the people of South Carolina were. There
never was, and I doubt very much whether, with
a large portion of them, there ever will be, any
ideas of the people governing themselves. They
had, at that early day, a great aversion to a gov-
ernvient by the people. It was repudiated; and in
the document which has just been read, signed by
two hundred and ten citizens of Charleston, they
proposed to pass back under the British Govern-
ment. This carries out the previous proposition
to remain with Great Britain by treaty stipulation,

and not go through the revolutionary struggle with
the colonies with whom they had formed a confed-
eration.

Again: in 1833, under the pretense of resist-
ance to the operation of our revenue system and
to a protective tariff, they endeavored to break
up the Government. They were overruled then.
Their pride was wounded by that failure; and
their determination was fi.xed, whenever it was in
their power, to break up this Government and go
out of the Union. This feeling, I have no doubt,
has existed there from that period to the present
time. When we turn to the debates which re-
cently took place in the South Carolina conven-
tion, we find that Mr. Maxcy Gregg, Mr. Rhett,
and others, said that their reason for going out of
the Union now dates as far back as forty years;
some of them said thirty years, and some twenty.
Mr. Gregg said, in the South Carolina conven-
tion, on the 21st of December last:

" If we undertake to set forlh all the causes, do we not
dishonor the memory of all the statesmen of South Caro-
lina, now departed, who connnenced forty years agoa war
against the tariff and against internal improvements, saying
nothing of the United States Bank, and other measiires,
which may now be regarded as obsolete."

Mr. Rhett, on the 24th of December, said:
'•The secession of South Carolina is not an event of a
day. It is not anything produced by Mr. Lincoln's elec-
tion, or by the noii-execution of the fugitive slave law. It
has been a matter which has been gathering head for thirty
years."

Hence we see that there is a design with some
to breakup this Government without reference to
the slavery question; and the slavery question is
by them made a pretense for destroying this Union.
They have at length passed their ordinance of
secession; they assume to be out of the Union;
they declare t'hat tliey are no longer a member of
the Confederacy. Now what are the other States
called upon to do .' Are the other States called
upon to make South Carolina an exemplar.' Are
those slave States who believe that freemen should
govern and that freemen can take care of slave
property, to be "precipitated into a revolution"
by following the example of South Carolina.'
Will they do it.' What protection, what security-
will Tennessee, will Kentucky, will Virginia, will
Maryland, or any other State, receive from South
Carolina by following her example .' What pro-
tection can she give them ? On the contrary, she
indulges in a threat towards them — a threat that
if they do not imitate her example and come into
a new confederacy upon her terms, they are to be
]iut under the ban, and their slave property to be
subjected to restraint and restriction. What pro-
tection can South Carolinagive Tennessee? Any.'
None upon the face of the earth.

Some of the men who are engaged in the work
of disruption and dissolution, want Tennessee
and Kentucky and Virginia to furnish them with
men and money in the event of their becoming
engaged in a war for the conquest of Mexico.
The Tennesseeans and Kentuckians and Virgin-
ians are very desirable when their men and their
money are wanted; but what protection does
South Carolina give Tennessee.' If negro prop-
erty is endangered in Tennessee, we have to de-
fend it and take care ofit — not South Carolina, that

12

has been an apple of discord in this Confederacy
from my earliest recollection down to the present
time, complaining of everything, satisfied with
nothing. I do not intend to be invidious, but I
have sometimes thought that it would be a com-
fort if Massachusetts and South Carolina could be
chained together as the Siamese twins, separated
from the continent, and taken out to some remote
and secluded part of the ocean, and there fast
anchored, to be washed by the waves, and to be
cooled by the winds; and after they had been
kept there a sufficient length of time, the people
of the United States might entertain the proposi-
tion of taking them back. [Laughter.] They
have been a source of dissatisfaction pretty much
ever since they entered the Union; and some ex-
periment of this sort, I think, would operate ben-
eficially upon them; but as they are here, we must
try to do the best we can with them.

REPLY TO MR. LANE.

Somuch.Mr. President, for South Carolina and
Louisiana in this struggle. I do not think they are
setting examples very worthy of imitation. But,
sir, the speech that 1 made on the 19th of Decem-
ber seems to have produced some little stir; and
among other distinguished Senators, the Senator
from Oregon [Mr. Lane] felt it his duty, late in
the evening, to make a reply to me. I do not see
why it was called for from the Senator from Ore-
gon. I did not know that I had said anything
that was offensive to him; it was not my inten-
tion to do so; it was an inadvertence, if I did. I
felt that I had just come out of a campaign in
•which I had labored hard, and in which I had ex-
pended my money and my time in vindicating
him and the present Vice President, who was a
candidate for the Presidency, from the charge of
favoring secession and disunion. Through the
dust and heat, through the mud and rain, I trav-
ersed my State, meeting the charge -of the Opposi-
tion that secession was at the bottom of this move-
ment; that there was a fixed design and plan to
break up this Government; that it started at
Charleston, and was consummated at Baltimore;
and the charge was made that my worthy friend
— if I may be permitted to call him such ; I thought
I was his friend then — was the embodiment of
disunion and secession. I met the charge. I
denied it. I repudiated it. I tried to convince the
people — and I think I did succeed in convincing
some of them— that the charge was untrue; and
that he and Mr. Breckinridge were the two best
Union men in the country. I did not see what
there was in my speech that should extort reply
from him, who resided away North. I had not
come in conflict with anything that he had said or
done. When he was striking these blows at me
without cause, I thought it was, at least, unkind.
1 may not have defended him to his entire satis-
faction. It so turned out that we were unfortu-
nate; we were defeated ; but I was willing to stand
like a man; to stand upon the Constitution and
the Union, and, if I must fall, fall decently. Af-
ter I had gone through the canvass; after I had
defended the Senator, and sustained him with my
voice and my vote, I thought it was strange that
he should attack me in the manner he did. I felt

like replying to him, on the spur of the occasion;
but it was late in the evening, and by the time he
had concluded, the Senate was tired out, and I
declined going on. I preferred to let it pass, and
submit to all the wrong and injury inflicted upon
me. In his speech upon that occasion, the Sena-
tor from Oregon made use of the following lan-
guage:

" He [alluding to myself] has spoken very handsomely
of the gallant conduct of that glorious hand, the northern
Democracy of the country, who, though In a minority at
home, have struggled for the rights of their southern breth-
ren—for the equality and rights of all the States. I belong
to that portion of the people of this country ; and I will say
to that honorable gentleman that while they struggle for the
constitutional rights of the other States of the Union, as
they have always done, and as tliey will continue to do,
there is one thing that they will not do : they will not march
under his banner to strike down a gallant, chivalrous, and
generous people contending for rights that have been re-
fused them by the other States of this Union. They will
not march with him under his bloody banner, or Mr. Lin-
coln's, to invade the soil of the gallant State of South Car-
olina when she may withdraw from a Confederacy that has
refused her that equality to which she is entitled, as a mem-
ber of the Union, under the Constitution. On the contrary,
when he or any other gentleman raises that banner and at-
tempts to subjugate that gallant people, instead of march-
ing with him, we will meet him there, ready to repel hira
and his forces. He shall not bring with him the northern
Democracy to strike down a people contending for rights
that have been refused them in a Union that ought to rec-
ognize the equality of every member of the Confederacy."

I do not know that I used any argument that
shotild have caused a reply like that. Did any-
body hear me use the term " bloody banner? "
Did anybody hear me talk about marching down
upon South Carolina? Did any body hear me speak
about coercing a State ? No.

Mr. LANE. Will the Senator allow me a
word ?

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I would rather
go on, sir. Why, then, answer positions I did
not assume, or attribute to me language that I did
not use? Was it in the speech? No. Why, then,
use language and assign a position to me which,
if not intended, was calculated to make a false im-
pression? What called it forth? What reason
was there for it? 1 saw the consternation which
was created. I looked at some of their faces. I
knew that I had stirred up animosit)r,and it was
I important that somebody from another quarter
i should make the attack. If the attack had been
j upon what I said or upon the position I had as-
, sumed, I should have no cause to complain; and
I I do not complain now. Sir, though not very old,
j I have lived down some men. I have survived
I many misrepresentations. I feel that I have a
conscience and a heart that will lead me to do it
again. But when I had said nothing, when I had
j done nothing, to be struck by him whom I have
1 vindicated, I might well have exclaimed, " That
I was the unkindest cut of all."

Again: the Senator said:
j " If it should come unfortunately upon this country, in-
augurated by a tyrant, who would like to conquer and hold
j American citizens as vassals, then I will say to that coward
1 who would do it, ' You will walk over your humble ser-
vant's body first.' 1 shall never cooperate with any portion
of this country, North or South, that would strike down a
people contending for their rights."

I march down upon South Carolina! Did I
propose any such thing? No. War is not the

13

natural element of my mind; and, as I stated in
that speech, my thoughts were turned on peace,
and not on war. I want no strife. I want no war.
In the language of a denomination that is numer-
ous in the country, I may say I hate war and love
peace. I belong to the peace party. I thought,
when I was making that speech, that I was hold-
ing out the olive branch of peace. I wanted to
give quiet and reconciliation to a distracted and
excited country. That was the object I had in
view. War, I repeat, is not the natural element
of my mind. I would rather wear upon my gar-
ments the dinge of the shop and the dust of the
field, as badges of the pursuits of peace, than the
gaudy epaulet upon my shoulder, or a sword
dangling by my side, with its glittering scabbard,
the insigniaof strife, of war, of blood, of carnage;
sometimes of honorable and glorious war. But,
sir, I would rather see the people of the United
States at war wit!\ every other Power upon the
habitable globe, than to be at war with each other, j
If blood must be shed, let it not be shed by the
people of these States, the one contending against
the other.

But the Senator went on still further in that dis-
cussion. Why it was necessary to follow up his
attack upon me, I cannot tell. Alluding to the i
Senator from Tennessee, he said: '

" He took occasion to give an account of the action of the
Senate upon certain resolutions introduced here, setting
forth the principles tliat were made the issue in the late
contest, and that were overridden and trodden down. He
called the attention of the Senate to a proposition intro-
duced by the honorable Senator from Mississippi [Mr.
Brown] to declare that now is the time for action ; that a
law ought to be passed at this time protecting property in the
Territories. Though it was my opinion then that it would
have been well to pass such a law, yet that Senator knew,
and so did every other one, tliat it was impossible in this
Congress to pass such a law. We might have passed such
a bill through this body, but it could never have passed the
other. Then it was our duty, as it was our privilege, to set
forth the principles on which this Government reposed, and
which must be maintained, or the Government cannot exist.
They were the principles upon which this great battle was
fought, that resulted in the election of Mr. Lincoln."

Before I take up that proposition in connection
with what I said before, I wish to say here that,
had the Senator avowed the doctrine prior to the
last presidential election that he avowed here in
reply to me, expressing his secession and dis-
union sentiments,! give it as my opinion that he
could not have obtained ten thousand votes in the
State of Tennessee in the last election, and I think
I know what I say. I give that, however, simply
as my opinion.

But to come back to the point at which the Sen-
ator speaks of the resolutions introduced by the
Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. Davis.] I had
referred to those resolutions to show that there [
was no occasion for this imme''iate secession with-
out giving the people time to think or understand
what was to be done. I thought so then, and 1 1
think so now; and I want to show what the Sen-
ator's views were then, and see what has brought |
about such a change upon his mind since. We
find that while those resolutions were under con-
sideration, Mr. Clingman offered an amendment,
to come in after the fourth resolution, to insert the j
following:

" Resolved, That the existing condition of the Territories

of the United States does not require the intervention of
Congress for the protection of jiroperty in slaves.

" On the question to agree to tlie amendment proposed
by Mr. Brown, to wit: Strike out of the amendment the
word ' not,'

" It was determined in the negative— yeas .5, nays 43."

Now,by striking out the word " not, "it makes
the resolution read:

" Resolved, That the existing condition of the Territories
of the United States does require the intervention of Con-
gress for the protection of property in slaves."

Mr. Brown, of Mississippi, moved to strike
out the word " not," thereby making it read that
the condition of the Territories does require the
protection of Congress for slave property; and
upon the yeas and nays being taken on tliat mo-
tion to strike out the word " not," there were —
yeas 5, nays 43.

" On motion of Mr. Clingman,

" The yeas and nays being desired by one fifth of the
Senators present,

" Those who voted in the affirmative are : Messrs. Brown,
Clay, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Yulee.

" Those who voted in the negative are : Messrs. Benja-
min, Bigler, Bingham, Bragg, Bright, Chandler, Chesnut,
Clark, Clingman, Collamer, Crittenden, Davis, Dixon, Doo-
little, Fitzpatrick, Foot, Green, Gvvin, Hale, Hamlin, Ham-
mond, Hemphill, Hunter, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy,
Lane, Latham, Mallory, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Polk,
Powell, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian, Slidell, Ten Eyck, Toombs,
Trumbull, Wade, Wigfall, Wilson."

Thus, forty-three Senators recorded their vote
during the last session of Congress that it was
not necessary to pass a law to protect slavery in
the Territories. The Senator from Oregon, in
connection with other Senators, under the solemn
sanction of an oath, declared that it was not ne-
cessary to pass laws for the protection of slavery
in the Territories. What right has South Caro-
lina lost since the last session? What right has
any State lost sin^e the last session of Congress.'
You declared that it was not necessary to pass a
law to protect them in the enjoyment of their
JDroperty in the Territories; and now, forsooth,
in the short space of two or three moons, you
turn around and tell the country that States are
justified in going out of the Union because Con-
gress will not pass a law to protect them in the
enjoyment of their property in the Territories,
when you said it was not necessary ! That is
what I call driving the nail in. [Laughter.] 1
will remark, as I go along, that the eloquent and
distinguished Senator who made his valedictory
here yesterday, on retiring from the Senate, voted
for that identical resolution. This protection was
not necessary then. They said it was wholly
unnecesary. But since that, they have waked up
to a sense of its necessity, and resolved to secede
if it should not be granted. To this same prop-
osition Mr. Albert G. Brown offered an amend-
ment. Mark you, this is the 25th day of May,
1860; and that is not long ago:

" On motion by Afr. Brown, to amend the resolution by
striking out all after the world ' resolved,' and in lieu
thereof, inserting: "

I wish I had the whole continent here to hear
this paragraph.

"That experience having already shown that the Con-
stitution and the common law, unaided by statutory enact-
ment, do not atibrd adequate and sufficient protection to
slave property; some of the Territories having failed, others

14

having refused to pass such enactments, it lias become tlie
duty of Congress to interpose and pass such laws as will
afford to slave property in the Territories that protection
which is given toother kinds of property."

That is a pretty clear proposition. Upon that,
Mr. Brown made an argument, showing the num-
ber of slaves in the Territories, and the action of
the Legislatures, and concluded that if the time
ever would arrive, it was then before Congress,
and they should pass a law on the subject. What
was the vote upon that? How does it stand?
We find, after an argument being made by Mr.
Brown, showing that the necessity did exist, ac-
cording to his argument, the vote upon the prop-
osition stood thus: The question being taken by
yeas and nays, it was determined in the negative
— yeas 3, nays 42.

Forty-two Senators voted that you did not need
protection; that slavery was not in danger.

"The yeas and nays being desired by one lifth of the
Senators present,

" Those who voted in the affirmative are: Messrs. Brown,
Johnson of Arliansas, Mallory."

There were only thi-ee. Who said it was not
necessary ? Who declared, under the solemn sanc-
tion of an oath, that protection was not needed?

" Those who voted in the negative, are : " Messrs. Ben-
jamin"—

Ah ! Yes; Benjamin ! —
" Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Chesniit, Clark, Clay, Clingnian,
Crittenden, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Filzpatrick, Foot,
Foster, Green, Grimes, Gwin, Hamlin, Hailan, Iluniphill,
Hunter" —

Hunter, of Virginia, also ! —
"Iverson, Johnson of Tennessee, Lane."

Ah! [Laughter.] Yes,LANE,of Oregon, voted
on the 25th day of last May, that slavery did not
need protection in the Territories. Now he will
get up and tell the American paople and the Sen-
ate that he is for a State seceding, and for break-
ing up the Government, because they cannot get
what he swore they did not need. [Laugliter.]
That is what I call putting the nail through.
[Laughter in the galleries.]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitch in
the chair.) The galleries must preserve order.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. Then, after
voting that it was not necessary to have a prop-
osition to protect slavery in the Territories, the
original proposition, as amended, was adopted by
a vote of 35 yeas to 2 nays; thus voting all the
way through, even to thefinal aetionof the Senate,
that no such protection was necessary. You have
not got protection, your rights, your " equality;"
and you tell me now by your position that I have
done you injustice by defeiiduig you against the
charge that you were in favor of adissolution of the
Union! Even if you approved it, it would only
show that I was mistaken. 1 was deceived then;
that was your fault; if deceived again, the fault
will be mine. 1 assumed, on that occasion, in refer-
ence to the act of ratification of the Constitution by
the State of Virginia, that so far as I was capable of
examining it, Virginia had made no reservation,
no condition, in her ratification of the Constitution
of the United States. I had examined the ques-
tion ; I had looked at all the authorities that could
be found upon the subject, and I could find no
warrant for the assertion; but still the Senator

from Oregon, in his reply to me, spoke with great
familiarity of the proceedings of that convention
ratifying the Constitution, as though he under-
stood it; and with great confidence said it had
made a reservation. I will read what he said:

"That gallant old State of Virginia, that glorious Old
Dominion, made a condition upon which she adopted the
Constitution. It became a portion of the compact. And
not only Virginia, but New York, made the same condition
when she adopted the Constitution ; and Rhode Island
also."

He spoke with great confidence in this reply to
me. He then said:

" Now, I would ask the honorable Senator from Tennes-
see, if the time has not arrived when these States ought to
resume the powers conferred on a Federal Government ;
or if it has not, I should like to know when the time can
come."

After declaring under the solemn sanction of an
oath that no protection was needed, and nothing
else has since transpired, he wants to know when
the time will come, if it has not come, that they
will be justified in breaking up this Confederacy ?
I saw a good deal of the confusion that was here
that evening; authorities were hunted up, para-
graphs marked, and leaves turned down; all, I
supposfi, to facilitate the intended attack. Some-
times a man had a great deal better read and under-

i stand a question for himself before he hazards an
opinion. I will not say that that is the case with
the honorable Senator, for I should proceed upon
the idea that he was laboring under the impression

i that he understood it exactly. It is not a very
uncommon occurrence to be mistaken. Some-
times the mistake results from a want of exam-
ination; sometimes from an incapacity to under-
stand the subject, and various other causes. So
it is that it occurs very frequently we labor under
false impressions. We find when we come to
examine this subject of the ratification of the Con-
stitution by Virginia, that a committee was ap-
pointed in the convention of Virginia, and that
that committee reported a set of resolutions. They
reported one resolution in lieu of the preamble.
That resolution is as follows:

" Resolved, That previous to the ratification of the new
Constitution of Government recommended by the late Fed-
eral convention, a declaration of rights, asserting and secur-
ing from encroachment the great principles of civil and
religious liberty, and the inalienable rights of the people,
together with amendments to the most exceptionable parts
of the said Constitution of Government, ought to be referred
by this convention to the other States in the American Con-
federacy for their consideration." — EilioVs Debates on the
Federal Constitution, vol. 3, p. 653.

Here was a proposition makingconditions; and
upon a vote to adopt this amendment it was voted
down — ayes 80, noes 88. Then what follows?
The committee reported an ordinance adopting
the Constitution of the United State.s; but in their
ordinance they go on and make a kind of pream-
ble, or a whereas, a declaration as to their under-
standing— not conditions, not reservations — but a
declaration of their understanding. What do they
say:

'•' We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected
in pursuance of 'a recommendation from the General As-
semblv, and now met in con vention, having fully and freely
investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal
convention, ajid being prepared as well as tiie most mature
deliberations Iiatli enabled us, to decide thereon" —

u

Now, mark you — '

"do, in the name and in the behalf of the people of Vir-
ginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted i
under the Constitution, being derived from the people of i
the United States, be resumed by them whensoever the
same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." —
Elliot's Debates on the Federal Constitution, vol. 3, p. 656.

They declare, in behalf of Virginia, that the
powers of the Constitution are derived from the
people of the United States, to " be resumed by
them whenever they shall be converted to their
injury or oppression." Who is to resume them?
The people of the United States. That idea was
always inculcated by James Madison. What
more do they say.' This is not the ratifying
clause. They say:

" With these impressions"—

Not these conditions, not these reservations —

" With these impressions, with a solemn appeal to the
Searcher of hearts, for the purity of our intentions, and
under the conviction that whatsoever imperfections may
exist in the Constitution, ought rather to be examined in
tlie mode prescribed therein, than to bring tlie Union into
danger by delay with a hope of obtaining amendments pre-
vious to the ratiljcatiou."

Now comes the ordinance of adoption; and
what is it:

" We, the said delegates, in the name and behalf of the
people of Virginia, do, by these presents, assent to and rat-
ify the Constitution, recommended on the 17th day of Sep-
tember, 1787, by the Federal Convention, for the govern-
ment of the United Slates ; hereby announcing to all whom
it may concern that the said constitution is binding upon
tlie said people, according to an authentic copy hereunto
annexed in the words following." — EllioVs Debates on the
Federal Constitution, vol. 3, p. 656.

Is there any reservation or condition there.' It
seems to me that the sight of a man would be ■
tolerably keen that could see a condition there.
When was this .' We find that Virginia adopted
that on Tuesday, June 26, 17S8. When did South
Carolina come into the Union .' Before Virginia
did. If Virginia made a condition, Soitth Caro- ]
lina was already in. How many States v/ere in .'
The covenant was formed and had been ratified '
by nine States before Virginia came into the
Union. The idea of Virginia appending condi-:
tions after the Government was formed and the
Constitution ratified by nine States !

But, to make this thing more clear, Mr. Madi-I
son, while in New York, received a letter from I
Mr. Hamilton, stating that he had some doubts
as to the ratification of the Constitution by New
York; that they wanted some conditions, and one
condition was, that they might have the privilege to
recede within five or seven years in the event cer-
tain amendments were not adopted to the Consti-
tution. I should have remarked, before passing
to this, that they adopted it, not wanting delay,
and then went in the same committee to report a
long list of amendments to be submitted, and
some of them were ratified afterwards by the dif-
ferent States. Mr. Madison writes, in reply to
Mr. Hamilton, and tells him, if the Constitution
is adopted, it must be adopted in toto, without
reservation or condition. I am inclined to think
Mr. Madison had some idea of this ordinance. I
think he understood it. Here is his letter. That
ordinance was adopted in Virginia, on June 26,

1778, and, in reply to Mr. Hamilton, in the fol-
lowing July, Mr. Madison said:

" The idea of reserving a right to withdraw was started
at Richmond, and considered as a conditional ratification,
which was itself abandoned as worse than a rejection."

Does not that show that I have put the correct
interpretation upon it.' James Madison under-
stood it as being an abandonment. I would as
soon rely upon his construction of the ordinance
that brought Virginia into the Union as I would
on that of the distinguished Senator from Oregon.
1 am inclined to think he was quite as familiar
with the history of that transaction and with the
whole subject as the Senator from Oregon, with
all his familiarity and astuteness on the subject.
So much in answer to that portion of the Sena-
tor's argument. We find upon an examination,
as I before remarked, that nine States had ratified
the Constitution before Virginia came in. New
York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island came in
afterwards. Mr. Madison so understood it. The
fathers of the Republic so understood it. The
country so understand it. Common sense so un-
derstands it. Practicability so understands it.
Everything that pertains to the preservation and
salvation of the Government so understands it, as
contradistinguished from the admission of this
doctrine of secession.

But let us progress a little further. The Gov-
ernment was formed; the Constitution was rati-
fied; and after the Constitution was ratified and
the Government in existence, there is provision
made, for what.' " New States may be admitted
by the Congress into this Union." These are
the words of the Constitution. Congress has the
power to prescribe the terms and conditions of
admission of a new State into the Union; and in
the discretion of Congress, they are admitted upon
an equal footing with the other States. It being
an express grant to admit, I say the Federal Gov-
ernment can exercise incidents that are necessary
and proper to carry the admission of States into
existence upon such a basis as they believe the
good of the Government demands. I am not so
sure but the admission of a new State is placed
upon a different ground from that of one of the
original States ratifying the Constitution. As the
Senator seems to be so familiar with things of this
sort, I will refer to the act admitting the State of
Alabama:

An act to enable the peopleof Alabama Territory to form
a constitution and State government, and for the admission
of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the
original States. (Approved March 2, 1819.)

Be it enacted, ^-c. That the inhabitants of the Territory
of Alabama be, and they are hereby, authorized to form for
themselves a constitution and State government, and to as-
sume such name as they may think proper ; and that the
said Territory, when formed into a State, shall be admitted
into Uie Union upon the same footing with the original
States, in all respects whatever.

Here is the ordinance of Alabama accepting the
terms of the above act; passed 2d August, 1819:
"This convention, for and In behalf of the people inhab-
iting this State, do accept the propositions oftVred by the
act of Congress under which they are assembled ; and this
convention, for and in behalf of the people inhabiung this
i State, do ordain, agree, and declare." * * , * . v,*
"And this ordinance is hereby declared irrevocable with-
1 out tlie consent of tlie United States."

16

This act was declared irrevocable. They agreed
to the conditions offered to them in the act of Con-
gress with reference to the public lands and other
subjects, and then the ordinance of coming into the
Union was declared irrevocable without the con-
sent of the United States. Congress then passed
an act accepting them upon the terms they im-
posed. That was the compact. What has been
done to Alabama .' What great complaint has she ?
Why should she leave the Union in such hot
haste ?

So much for that, sir. In the remarks that I
made when I last addressed the Senate, I referred
to the constitution of the State of Tennessee,
which was adopted in 1796, and their bill of rights,
in which they declare that they would never sur-
render or give up the navigation of the Missis-
sippi to any people. The Senator from Oregon,
on that occasion, in reply to me, vised the follow-
ing language:

"Then he is concerned about tlie navigation of the Mis-
sissippi river. He says that the great State of Tennessee
and he, liimself, are concerned about the navigation of that
river. I believe it is recognized as tlie law of nations, as
the law of all civilized nations, that a great inland sea run-
ning through several Governments shall be open equally to
all of tliem ; and besides, as the honorable Senator from
Louisiana said, there is no man in Louisiana that would
think for a moment of depriving Tennessee of the right of
navigating that great river. No, sir, nor Kentucky cither,
nor Indiana, nor Illinois, nor any other State whose waters
flow into that mighty stream. No such thing would ever be
done."

That was the Senator's declaration then, that
nobody would question the right of those States
to navigate that great inland sea. He seemed to
show great familiarity with international law. I
took it for granted that he had read Grotius and
Wheaton upon international law, and all the other
authorities on the subject, for he spoke about it
with great familiarity, as if he understood it well.
How docs the matter stand, sir.' Before the
printer's ink that impressed his speech upon the
paper is dry, we find an ordinance passed, as I
remarked before, by the State of Louisiana, de-
claring negatively that she has the right to control
the navigation of that river under her act of seces-
sion. If the Senator had put himself to the trou-
ble, as I presume he did, or ought to have done,
to examine this subject, he would have found that
the navigation of the Mississippi river has been a
subject of negotiation for years upon years. He
would have found that the navigation of various
rivers throughout the world has been the subject
of long, angry, and contested negotiation. WJfiile
upon this point, I desire to present to the Senate
an extract from a leading authority on this sub-
ject. I read from Wheaton's Elements of Interna-
tional Law:

"The territory of the State includes the lakes, seas,
and rivers, entirely inclosed within its limits. The rivers
which flow through the territory also form a part of the
domain, from their sources to their mouths, or as far as
they flow within the territory, including the bays or estua-
ries formed by their junction with the sea. Where a navi-
gable river forms the boundary of coterminous States, the
middle of the channel, or thalweg, is generally taken as the
line of separation between the two States, the presumption
of law being that tlie riglit of navigation is common to both ;
but this presumption maybe destroyed by actual proof of
prior occupancy and long undisturbed possession, giving to
one of the riparian proprietors the exclusive title to the
entire river.

" Things of which the use is inexhaustible, such as the
sea and running water, cannot be so appropriated as to ex-
clude others from using these elements in any manner which
does not occasion a loss or inconvenience to the proprietor.
This is what is called an innocent use. Thus we have seen
that the jurisdiction possessed by one nation over sounds,
straits, and other arms of the sea leading through its own
territory to that of another, or to other seas common to all
nations, does not exclude others from the right of innocent
passage through these communications. The same prin-
ciple is applicable to rivers flowing from one State througli
the territory of another into the sea, or into the territory of
a third State. The right of navigating, for commercial pur-
poses, a river which flows through the territories of differ-
ent States, is common to al! the nations inhabiting the dif-
ferent parts of its banks; but this riglu of innocent passage
being what the text writers call an imperfect right, its ex-
ercise is necessarily modified ijy the safety and convenience
of the State affected by it, and can only be effectually se-
cured by mutual convention regulating tlie mode of its ex-
ercise.

" It seems that this right draws after it the incidental
right of using all the means which are necessary to the se-
cure enjoyment of the principal right itself. Thus the Ro-
man law, which considered navigable rivers as public or
common property, declared that tlie right to the use of the
sliores was incident to that of the water ; and that the right
to navigate a river involved the right to moor vessels to its
banks, to lade and unlade cargoes, &c. The public jurists
apply this principle of the Roman civil law to the same case
between nations, and infer the right to use the adjacent
land for these purposes, as means necessary to the attain-
ment of the end for which the free navigation of the water
is permitted." — IVheaton's Elements of International Law,
part 2, chap. 4, pp. 252, 253, 254.

Now, what are we told ? That Louisiana, for
which we paid $15,000,000, whose battles we
fought, whose custom-houses, forts, arsenals,
dock -yards, and hospitals we built, — in the exer-
cise of the plenitude of her power, declares that she
has control of the Mississippi, and such States
may navigate that .stream as are on friendly rela-
tions with her, she being the judge. Is not this
what the dogma of secession leads us to ? We see
where it carries us; we see in what it will end —
litigation, war, and bloodshed. As I remarked
before, as we approach and advance in the inves-
tigation of the subject, we discover its enormities
more and more. I repeat, it is the prolific mother
of anarchy, which is the next step to despotism
itself. The Senator from Oregon seems not to be
apprehensive at all; and yet, before his voice has
done reverberating in the Hall, we have the open
declaration that they intend to exercise the con-
trol of the navigation of the Mississippi. Would
it not have been better for Louisiana

Mr. LANE. I think the Senator ought to
allow me to say a word.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I do not want
to be interrupted. I certainly mean no discour-
tesy at all to the Senator.

Mr. LANE. I only wish to say, in tlie way
of explanation, that the people of New Orleans
have had police regulations by which they liave
collected taxes to improve their wharves ever since
New Orleans belonged to this country.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. It is a very
common thing in all cities where there are wharves,
either on the river or ocean, to have what is com-
monly called a wharfage tax. We understand
that. The navigation of the high seas and rivers
is a different thing from paying wharfage and a
little tax to defray the expense of keeping wharves
and docks up. We understand all about that.
That is a very different affair from placing bat-

17

teries at this early day upon the banks of that
great stream.

Mr. LANE. That was against the common
enemy.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I did not know
we had any enemies in these States. I thought
we were brothers, and were entitled to carry on
free trade from one extremity of this Confederacy
to the other. I did not know that the people of
Indiana and Illinois and Kentucky and Tennessee,

foing along down that river, had got to be enemies,
suppose, however, when we look at these things
our minds change and vary by varying circum-
stances. When we are candidates for the Presi-
dency, we feel more like brothers; but when we
have made the experiment, and signally failed, I
suppose the enemy's line begins just at the line
where our defeat was consummated. [Laughter
and applause in the galleries.]

The PRESIDING OFFICER called to order.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. How long has
it been since we were prepared to go to war with
the most formidable Power upon earth because
she claimed the right of search .' We would not
concede to Great Britain the i-ight of searching
our ships on the high seas; and yet what do we
now see ? Batteries placed upon the banks of the
Mississippi to enforce the right of search . Do we
not see where it will lead.' Do we not all know
in what it Avill end .'

I have no disposition to do the Senator from
Oregon, or any other Senator, injustice. In this
connection, I will say, as I have intimated be-
fore, that I thought his attack upon me unkind
and uncalled for. Let that be as it may, it is not
my disposition or my intention, on this occasion,
to do him injustice. I intend to do him full jus-
tice. In the reply that he made to me — to which
I yesterday referred — he gave the contradiction
direct to v/hat I stated in the presidential canvass,
in answer to the charge that had been made that
you, Mr. President, and the Senator from Ore-
gon, were disunionists; were infavor of secession;
and that you were used by what was called the
seceding or disunion party for the purpose of dis-
rupting and breaking up the Government. I met
those charges — because I believed they were un-
true, that they were not founded in fact — in various
places, before large assemblies, and, I thought,
successfully, at least to my own mind, exonerated
you and the candidate for the Vice Presidency
from the charge. I confess it was somewhat mor-
tifying to me, after the reply which the Senator
made, to have to say to the people, and the coun-
try generally, that I vindicated him against a
charge which was true; for, when we take up his
speech here in reply to the remarks that I made
on that occasion, none of which had the slightest
reference to him, involving neither his position
before the country, nor his consistency as a legis-
lator, we find that he took bold ground, advocat-
ing and justifying secession, arguing, in fact, that
it was constitutional. I felt, after that speech,
that I was involved in inconsistency before my
people, an inconsistency in which I ought not to
have been involved.

But in that same speech, in which the honora-
ble Senator involved me in these contradictions,

he goes on to state — and I will do him justice by
reading his speech, for I do not want to misquote
him:

" But, sir, understand me ; I am not adisunionist. Iain
for the right, and I would have it in the Union ; and if it
cannot be obtained tliere, I would go out of the Union, and
have that out of the Union that I could not obtain in it,
though 1 was entitled to it."

Mr. President, I have called the attention of the
Senate to the paragraph of the Senator's speech
which I have just read, in which he disavows dis-
union sentiments; but when you take the preced-
ing part of his speech, you find that he advocates
the doctrine of disunion and secession almost from
the beginning up to the sentence that I have read.
It seems to me it is paradoxical; but that may be
my misfortune, not his. He may be capable of
reconciling the conflict, the seeming inconsistency
of first advocating the doctrine of dissolution, se-
cession, and disunion, and then at the same time
exclaiming that he is no disunionist. I do not
know how a Senator can be for the Union, and at
the same time concede the right that a State has
the authority to secede under the Constitution;
that it is justified in seceding, and ought to secede ;
that when it demands rights in the Union that it
cannot get, it should go out of the Union to ob-
tain that which could not be obtained in it. But
let all that pass. I wish to do him no injustice;
and therefore I desired to call attention, in the
remarks that I am making, to his disclaimer of
being a disunionist and a secessionist.

Mr. President, the Senator, in the sentence I
have quoted, assumes that South Carolina, for
instance, had the right to secede; and he assumes,
also, that South Carolina can obtain that out of
the Union which she has failed to obtain in it.
Let us raise the inquiry here: what is it, since she
entered into this Confederacy of States, that South
Carolina has desired or asked at the hands of the
Federal Government, or demanded upon consti-
tutional ground, that she has not obtained.' What
great wrong, what great injury, has been inflicted
upon South Carolina by her continuance in this
Union of States.' I know it is very easy, and
even Senators have fallen into the habit of it, to
repeat some phrases almost as a chorus to a song;
such as " if we cannot get our rights in the Union,
we will go out of the Union and obtain those
rights; that we are for the equality of the States
in the Union, and if we cannot get it we will go
out of the Union," I suppose to bring about that
equality. What is the point of controversy in
the public mind at this time.' Let us look at the
question as it is. We know that the issue which
has been before the country to a very great ex-
tent, and which, in fact, has recently occupied the
consideration of the public, is the territorial ques-
tion. It is said that South Carolina has been re-
fused her rights in the Union, with reference to
thatterritorial question, and therefore she is going
out of the Union to obtain that which she cannot
get in it.

Now, Mr. President, when we come to exam-
ine this subject, liow does the matter stand.' I
showed yesterday, in reference to the protection
of slave property in the Territories of this Con-
federacy, that South Carolina, in connection with

18

the distinguished Senator from Oregon, had voted
expressly that no slavery code was needed; that
no further protection was needed, so far as Con-
gress was concerned. They decided it here in this
body. South Carolina, by her own vote, on the
25th day of May last, decided that she needed no
further protection in the Territories of the United
States, so far as Congress was concerned. The
Senator from Oregon voted with her. That vote
seemed to be connected with and predicated upon
the great fact that the Supreme Court of the United
States had decided this question ; that they had de-
clared the Missouri compromise — in other words,
the law excluding slavery north of 36° 30', and
making it permissive south of 30° 30' — unconsti-
tutional and void; and, according to our forms of
Government, it was in fact stricken from the stat-
ute-book by the decision of the court. They
thereby said to the country, the supreme arbiter \
of the land, so made by the Constitution of the
United States, has decided that the people have a
right, without regard to the character or descrip- ;
tion of their property, to carry it into all the Ter-
ritories of the United States, and that under the
Constitution of the United States it is protected
there. It was said, the court having decided that
they had a right to go there with this institution
of slavery, and the Constitution finding it there,
it was recognized and protected by the Constitu-
tion of the United States.

In this connection, permit me to go outside of
the Senate Chamber, and state what occurred in :
my own State. There, those who were the best
friends of the distinguished Senator from Oregon,
and who are ultra upon this subject, before thou-
sands of the people of that State took the bold
ground that they wanted no further protection
from Congress; that the Constitution of the Uni-
ted States and the opinion of the Supreme Court
were all the slavery code they desired; that the
question was settled; that the power was com-
plete; and that protection was ample.

In this connection, sir, we must recollect the
decision made by the Senate upon the resolutions
introduced by the Senator from Mississippi [Mr.
Davis] on the 25th day of May last. On that
day, under the solemn sanction of an oath, and
all the formalities of legislation spread upon the
Journals, the yeas and nays being taken, we de-
clared, after an argument on the subject, that no
further protection was needed at that time. The
Senate went on and stated, in the fifth resolution —
I give the substance, I do not pretend to repeat the
words — that if hereafter it should become neces-
sary to have protection of this kind, then Congress
should give it; biit they said it was unneces.sary
at that time. If South Carolina and the Senator
from Oregon took this position then, what has
transpired since that period of time that now jus-
tifies a State in withdrawing or seceding from this
Union, on account of Congress not doing that
which they declared was not necessary to be done ?

But let us take the fact as it is. South Caro-
lina,itis said, wanted protection in theTerritories.
I have shown that she said, herself, that further
protection was not needed; but if it should be
needed, then Congress should give it. But South
Carolina — the Kingdom of South Carolina — in

the plenitude of her power, and upon her own
volition, without consultation with the other States
of this Confederacy, has gone out of the Union,
or assumed to go out. The next inquiry is: what
does South Carolina now get, in the language of
the distinguished Senator from Oregon, out of the
Union that she did not get in the Union ? Is there
a man in South Carolina to-day that wants to carry
a single slave into any Territory we have got in
the United States that is now unoccupied by slave
property ? I am almost ready to hazard the as-
sertion that there is not one. If he had not the
power and the right to carry his slave property
into a Territory while in the Union, has he ob-
tained that right now by going out of the Union .'
Has anything been obtained by violating the
Constitution of the United States, by withdraw-
ing from the sisterhood of States, that could not
have been obtained in it? Can South Carolina,
now, any more conveniently and practically carry
slavery into the Territories than she could before
she went out of the Union ? Then what has she
obtained? What has she got, even upon the doc-
trine laid down by the distinguished Senator from
Oregon?

But it is argued, striding over the Constitution
and violating that comity and faith which should
exist amongst the States composing this Confed-
eracy, that she had a right to secede; she had a
right to carry slaves into the Territories; and
therefore, she will secedeand go out of the Union.
This reasoning on the part of South Carolina is
about as sound as that of the madman, who as-
sumed that he had dominion over the beasts of the
forest, and therefore that he had a, right to shear
a wolf. His friends remonstrated with him, and,
admitting his right to do so, inquired of him if he
had considered the danger and the difficulty of the
attempt. " No," said the madman, " I have not
considered that; that is no part of my considera-
tion; man has the dominion over the beasts of the
forest, and therefore he has a right to shear a
wolf; and as I have a right to do so, I will exer-
cise it." His friends still remonstrated and ex-
postulated, and asked him, not only " Have you
considered the danger, the difficulty, and the con-
sequences resulting from such an attempt; but,
what will the shearing be worth?" "But," he
'replied, "I have the right, and therefore I will
shear a wolf." South Carolina has the right,
according to the doctrine of the seceders and dis-
unionists of this country, to go out of the Union,
and therefore she will go out of the Union.

And what, Mr. President, has South Carolina
gained by going out ? It has been just about as
profitable an operation as the shearing of the wolf
; by the madman. Can she now carry slaves' into
the Territories ? Does she even get any division
of the Territories? None; she has lost all that.
Does she establish a right? No; but by the exer-
!ciseof this abstract right, as, contended for by
secessionists, what has she got ? Oppression, tax-
iation, a reign of terror over her people, as the
result of their rashness in the exercise of this as-
j sumed right. In what condition is her people now?
jThey have gone out of the Union to obtain their
rights, to maintain their liberty, to get that out of
I tlie Union which they could not get in it ! While

19

they were in the Union, they were not taxed a
million and some six or seven or eight hundred
thousand dollars in addition to their usual ex-
penditures, to sustain standing armies and to meet
other expenditures which are incurred by sepa-
ration. But still she has the right to tax her peo-
ple; she has the right to institute a reign of terror;
she has the right to exclude her people from the
ballot-box; and she has exercised the right, and
these are the consequences. She has got her rights !
She has gone out of the Union to be free, and has
introduced a galling system of tyranny. She has
gone out of the Union to be relieved from taxes,
and has increased the burdens upon her people
fourfold. All this is in the exercise of her right !

Mr. President, when we examine this subject,
and follow it step by step, to see what is gained by
this movement, human reason deplores the folly
which it exhibits. The public mind seems to
have been inflamed to madness, and in its deli-
rium it overbears all restraint. To some it ap-
pears that our admirable system of civil liberty
is crumbling to pieces; that the temple of liberty
is upheaved; that its columns are falling, and that
notliing will remain but a general ruin; and in
their consternation too many stand back appalled ,
and take no position for the relief of their country
in the pending crisis. But, sir, the relations that
we bear to ihe people of the United States, behoove
every man, whether Senator or Representative,
or even private citizen, to come forward as a patriot
and lover of his country, and look at the condition
of the country as it is. Without regard to the con-
sequences upon myself, I have determined to meet
this question, and to present my views to the
country in such form as I believe to be right and
proper.

Sir, let us look at the contest through which
we are passing, and consider what South Caro-
lina, and the other Slates who have undertaken
to secede from the Confederacy, have gained.
What is the great difficulty which has existed in
the public mind ? We know that, practically, the
territorial question is settled. Then what is the
cause for breaking vtp this great Union of States ?
Has the Union or tlie Constitution encroached
upon the rights of South Carolina or any other
State.' Has this glorious Union, that was inaugu-
rated by the adoption of the Constitution, which
was framed by the patriots and sages of the Revo-
lution, harmed South Carolina or any other State ?
No; it has offended none; it has protected all.
What is the difficulty ? We have some bad men
in the South — the truth 1 will speak — and we have
some bad men in the North, who want to dis-
solve this Union in order to gratify their unhal-
lowed ambition. And what do we find here upon
this floor and upon the floor of the other House
of Congress.' Words of crimination and recrim-
ination are heard. Bad men North say provoking
things in reference to the institutions of the South,
and bad men and bad tempered men of the South
say provoking and insulting things in return; and
so goes on a war of criminaiion and recrimination
in reference to the two sections of the country,
and the institutions peculiar to each. Tliey be-
come enraged and insulted, and then they are de-
nunciatory of each other; and what is the result?

The Abolitionists, and those who entertain their
sentiments, abuse men of the South, and men of
the South abuse them in return. They do not
fight each other; but they both become offended
and enraged. One is dissatisfied with the other;
one is insulted by the other; and then, to seek re-
venge, to gratify themselves, they both agree to
make war upon the Union that never offended or
injured either. Is this right.' What has this
Union done .' Why should these contending par-
ties make war upon it because they have insulted
and aggrieved each other.' This glorious Union,
that was spoken into existence by the fathers of
the country, must be made war upon to gratify
these animosities. Shall we, because we have said
bitter things of each other which have been offens-
ive, turn upon the Government, and seek its de-
struction, and entail all the disastrous conse-
quences upon commerce, upon agriculture, upon
the industrial pursuits of the country, that must
result from the breaking up of a great Govern-
ment like this ? What is to be gained out of the
Union that we cannot get in it? Anything? I
have been zealously contending for — and intend to
continue to contend for — every right, even to the
ninth part of a hair* that I feel the State which I
have the honor in part to represent is entitled to.
I do notintend to demand anything but that which
is right; and I will remark, in this connection,
that there is a spirit in the country which, if it
does not exist to a very great extent in this Hall,
does exist in the great mass of the people North
and South, to do what is right; and if the ques-
tion could be taken away from politicians; if it
could be taken away from the Congress of the
United States, and referred to the great mass of
the intelligent voting population of the United
States, they would settle it without the slightest
difficulty, and bid defiance to secessionists and
disunionists. [Applause in the galleries.]

The VICE PRESIDENT. ^There must be
many persons in the galleries who have been
warned again and again that order must be main-
tained. 1 hope not to have occasion to refer to
the subject again.'

Mr. JOHNSON, ofTennessee. Mr. President,
I have an abiding confidence in the people; and
if it were so arranged to-day that the great mass
of the American people could be assembled in an
amphitheater capacious enough to contain them
all, and the propositions which have been pre-
sented here to preserve this Union, could be re-
duced to a tangible shape, and submitted to them,
politicians being left out of view, the question
being submitted to the great mass of the people,
it beingtheir interest to do right, they being lovers
of their country, having to pay all, having to pro-
duce all, having to provide all, there would be but
one single response, " Do that which will give
satisfaction, ample and complete, to the various and
conflicting sections of this glorious Republic."

But, sir, how are we situated? There are pol-
iticians here, and throughout the land, some of
whom want to break up the Union, to promote
their own personal aggrandizement; some, on the
other hand, desire the Union destroyed that sla-
very may be extinguished. Then let me appeal
to every patriot in the land, in view of this state

20

of things, to come forward and take the Govern-
ment out of the hands of the Goths and Vandals,
wrest it from the Philistines, save the country,
and hand it down to our children as it has been
handed down to us.

I have already asked what is to be gained by
the breaking up of this Confederacy. An appeal
is made to the border slaveholding States to unite
in what is commonly styled the Gulf confederacy.
If there is to be a division of this Republic, I would
rather see the line run anywhere than between
the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding States,
and the division made on account of a hostility,
on the one hand, to the institution of slavery,
and a preference for it, on the other; for whenever
that line is drawn, it is the line of civil war; it is
the line at which the overthrow of slavery begins;
the line from which it commences to recede. Let
me ask the border States, if that state of things
should occur, who is to protect them in the enjoy-
ment of their slave property? Will South Caro-
lina, that has gone madly out, protect them ? Will
Mississippi and Alabama and Louisiana, still
further down towards the Gulf? Will they come
to our rescue, and protect us? Shall we partake
of their phrenzy, adopt the mistaken policy into
which they have fallen, and begin the work of
the destruction of the institution in which we are
equally interested with them ? I have already
said that I believe the dissolution of this Union
will be the commencement of the overthrow and
destruction of the institution of slavery. In a
northern confederacy, or in a southern confeder-
acy, or in a middle confederacy, the border slave-
holding States will have to take care of that par-
ticular species of property by their own strength,!
and by whatever influence they may exert in the ]
organization in which they may be placed. The
Gulf States cannot, they will not, protect us. We
shall have to protect ourselves, and perchance to
protect them. As I remarked yesterday, my own
opinion is, that the great desire to embrace the
border States, as they are called, in this partic-
ular and exclusive southern confederacy, which
it is proposed to get up, is not that they want us
there out of pure good will, but they want us there
as a matter of interest; so that if they are involved
in war, in making acquisitions of territory still
further south, or war growing out of any other
cause , they may have a corps de reserve, they may
have a power behind, that can furnish them men
and money — men that have the hearts and the souls
to fight and meet an enemy, come from what
quarter he may.

What have we to gain by that? The fact that
two taken from four leaves but two remaining, is
not clearer to my mind that it is that the dissolu-
tion of the Union is the beginning of the destruc-
tion of slavery; and that if a division be accom-
plished, as some desire, directly between the
slaveholding and the non-slaveholding States, the
work will be commenced most eflectually. Upon
this point, I propose to read a short extract from
South Carolina herself. Mr. Boyce, late a mem-
ber of the other House, a distinguished man, a
man of talent, and I believe a good man, and who,
I have no doubt, in his heart this day regrets most
deeply and sincerely the course which South Car-

olina has taken, said, in 1851, when the same issue
was presented:

" Secession, separate nationality, with all its burdens, is
no remedy. It is no redress for the past; it is no security
for the future. It is ony a magnificent sacrifice to the pres-
ent, witliout in any wise gaining in the future." ♦ *
* * " For the various reasons I have stated, I object
in as strong terms as I can, to the secession of South Car-
olina. Such is the intensity of my conviction on this sub-
ject, that if secession should take place — of which I have
no idea, for I cannot believe in the existence of such a stu-
pendous madness — I shall consider the institution of slavery
as doomed, and that the great God, in our blindness, has
made us the instruments of its destruction."

He said then, that if South Carolina, in her
madness, (but he did not believe she could ,) should
determine upon secession, he would look upon it
that the great God had doomed the institution of
slavery. This is the opinion of one of the most
distinguished and, I conscientiously believe, best
men of South Carolina.

But, sir, I pass on from the paragraph of the
speech of the honorable Senator from Oregon to
which I have referred; and as there seems to have
been a sort of arrangement — at least it appears so
to my mind — to make and keep up an attack on
me, because I agreed with Mr. Boyce of South
Carolina in this respect; because I agreed with
many distinguished men; and because 1 advanced
the doctrines of the fathers who formed the Re-
public, I shall take up these Senators in the order
in which I was attacked. Without being egotist-
ical, without being vain, when I feel that I have
got truth on my side, when I feel that I am stand-
ing on principle, when I know that I have got
facts and arguments that cannot be answered, I
never inquire as to the difference of ability or ex-
perience between myself and those with whom I
have to contend.

REPLY TO MR. DAVIS.

The next Senator in order that made an attack
upon me on account of my previous s]5eech was
the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, [Mr.
Davis,] who took occasion to do so in making his
valedictory address to the Senate after his State
had passed her ordinance of secession. It has
been the case not only with that Senator, but with
others, that an attempt has been made by innuendo,
by indirection, by some side remark, to convey
the impression that a certain man has a tendency
or bearing towards Black Republicanism or Ab-
olitionism. Sometimes gentlemen who cannot
establish such a charge, are yet willing to make
it, not directly, but by innuendo; to create a false
impression on the public mind —

" Willing to wound, but yet afraid to strike."
If the charge can be successfully made, why not
make it directly, instead of conveying it by innu-
endo ? The Senator from Mississippi did not at-
tempt to reply to my speech, did not answer my
arguments, did not meet my authorities, did not
controvert my facts; but after reaching a certain
point in his own argument, he disposes of all that
I had said in these very few words:

" I am here confronted with a question which I will not
argue. The position wliich I have taken necessarily brings
me to Its consideration. Without arguing it, I will merely
mention it. It is the right of a State to withdraw from the
Union. The President says it is not a constitutional right.

21

The Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Wade,] and liis ally, the Sen- j
ator from Tennessee, argued it as no right at all."

Is that the way for a Senator, a distinguished
Senator, an Ajax of his peculiar sect — for when
we come to examine this doctrine of secession,
it is only broad enough to found a sect upon; it
is not comprehensive enough, it has not scope
enough, to found a great national party on — to
notice the arguments of others .' The Senator from
Mississippi would not argue the right of seces-
sion. I say, that if any government be organized
hereafter, in which this principle of secession is
recognized, it will result in its destruction and
overthrow. But the Senator says that the Sen-
ator from Ohio, [Mr. Wade,] and " his ally from
Tennessee," regard secession as no right at all;
and by that statement the whole argument is an-
swered. What is the idea here? Let us talk
plainly, though courteously and respectfully.
What was the idea which this remark was calcu-
lated, if not intended, to convey.' I am free to
say, that I think it was intended as well as calcu-
lated, to convey the impression that the Senator
from Tennessee was an ally of Mr. Wade, of
Ohio, who was a Republican, and the whole speech
of the Senator from Tennessee, the authorities,
the facts, and the arguments, are all upturned by
that single allusion. Thank God, there is too
much good sense and intelligence in this country,
to put down any man by an innuendo or side re-
mark like that. But, sir, so far as the people
whom I have the honor in part to represent are
concerned, I stand above innuendoes of that kind.
They have known me from my boyhood up.
They understand my doctrines and my principles,
in private and in public life. They have tried me
in every position in which it was in their power
to place a public servant, and they, to-day, will
not say that Andrew Johnson ever deceived or
betrayed them. In a public life of twenty-five
years, they have never deserted or betrayed me;
and God willing, I will never desert or betray them.
The great mass of the people of Tennessee know
that 1 am for them; they know that I have advo-
cated those great principles and doctrines upon
which the perpetuity of this Government depends;
they know that I have periled my all, pecuniarily
and physically, in vindication of their rights and,
their interests. Little innuendoes, thrown off in j
snarling moods, fall harmless at my feet.

It was said that I was the ally of the Senator
from Ohio. I turn to the doings of the committee
of thirteen to show who were allies there. I do
not inquire what a man's antecedents have been
when there is a great struggle to preserve the ex-
istence of the Government; but my first inquiry
is, are you for preserving this Government; are
you for maintaining the Constitution upon which
It rests. If Senator Wade, or Senator anybody
else, is willing to come up to this great work,
either by amending the Constitution of the Uni-
ted States, or passing laws that will preserve and
perpetuate this great Union, I am his ally and he
is mine; and I say to every Senator; to every
member of the House of Representatives ; to every
man that loves his country throughout the length
and breadth of this great Confederacy, if you are
for preserving this Union on its great and funda-

mental principles, I am your ally, without refer-
ence to your antecedents, or to what may take
place hereafter. I say to all such men, come for-
ward, and, like gallant knights, let us lock our
shields and make common cause for this glorious
people. If I were to indulge in a similar kind of
innuendo, by way of repartee, where would the
Senator from Mississippi find himself? In the
committee of thirteen, a resolution was introduced
by the distinguished Senator from New York,
[Mr. Seward,] — who, I must say, since this ques-
tion has sprung up, has given every indication of
a desire for reconciliation and for compromise,
and'of a disposition to preserve the Government,
that a man occupying his position could do — to
this effect:

" Resolved, That the following article be, and the same
is hereby, proposed and submitted as an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, to be valid, to all intents
and purposes, as a part of said Constitution, when ratified
by tlie J-,egislatures of three fourths of the States :

" 1. No amendment shall be made to the Constitution
which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abol-
ish, or interfere, within any State, with the domestic insti-
tutions tliereof, including that of persons held to labor or
service by the laws of said State."

That was a proposition which was calculated,
to a very great extent, to allay the apprehensions
and the fears that have been entertained in the
South ill reference to the institution of slavery.
Why do I say so ? We know what the argument
has been before the southern mind. It has been:
first, that the northern anti-slavery party wanted
to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, as
an entering wedge; next, to exclude it from the
Territories, following up the attack upon slavery;
but these points were looked upon as of minor
importance; they were looked upon as outposts,
as the prelude to an interference with the institu-
tion within the States, which lias been supposed
to be the great end and the great consideration.
Do you not know this to be the argument: that
they were merely taking these positions as enter-
ing wedges to an interference with the institution
of slavery in the States ? Such is the real ques-
tion, and such it will remain, the territorial ques-
tion being substantially settled. What does Mr.
Seward, who has acquired so much notoriety by
his " irrepressible conflict," say? Hecomeshere
and proposes an amendment to the Constitution,
which puts an estoppel upon his " irrepressible
conflict" doctrine. He is willing to make it per-
petual, so that the institution cannot be interfered
with in the States by any future amendment of the
Constitution. That is Mr. Seward's measure.
Upon the adoption of that resolution, I believe
every member of the committee voted for it, save
two. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Davis]
voted for it; Mr. Seward voted for it; and Mr.
Wade, of Ohio, voted for it. Whose ally is he?
Here we find Wade and Seward and Davis, and
the whole committee, with the exception of two,
in favor of amending the Constitution so that the
institution of slavery cannot be interfered with
in the Stales, making that provision irrepealable
by any number of States that may come into tke
Confederacy. Who were " allies " then ?

But, Mr. President, recurring to what I said
yesterday, there are two parties in this country

22

that want to break up the Government. Who
are they ? The nullifiers proper of the South , the ]
secessionists, or disunionists — for I use them all
as synonymous terms. There is a portion of them
who, per se, desire the disruption of the Govern- j
ment for purposes of their own aggrandizement.
I do not charge upon them that they want to j
breakup theGovernmentforthe purpose of affect-
ing slavery; yet I charge that the breaking up of
the Government would have that effect; the result ,
would be the same. Who else is for breaking j
up this Government.? I refer to some bad men in j
the North. There is a set of men there who are i
called Abolitionists, and they want to break up ;
the Government. They are disunionists; they are
secessionists; they are nullifiers. Sir, the Ab-
olitionists and the distinguished Senator from
Mississippi and his party both stand in the same !
attitude, to attain the same end, a dissolution of i
this Union; the one party believing that it will j
result in their own aggrandizement South, and the |
other believing that it will result in the overthrow j
of the institution of slavery. Who are the dis-
unionists of the North? Who are the "allies " of
the distinguished Senator from Mississippi? We !
find that a resolution was adopted at the anniver-
sary of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society,
convened in Boston, in these words:

"Resolved, That tlie one great issue before tlie country
is the dissolution of the Union, in comparison with which
ali other issues with llie slave power are as dust in the bal-
ance ; therefore we give ourselves to the work of annulling
this covenant with death, as essential to our own inno-
cency, and the speedy and everlasting overthrow of the
slave system."'

This resolution was passed by the Abolition
anti-slavery society of Massachusetts. They
think a dissolution of the Union would result
in the destruction of slavery, and absolve them
from this " covenant with death," and attest their
innocency,as far as the Government is concerned.
On that, we find that Mr. Wendell Phillips made
the following remarks:

"I entirely accord with the sentiments of th.at last reso-
lution. I think all we have to do is to prepare the public
mind by the daily and hourly presentation of the doctrine
of disunion. Events vvhich,'fortunately for us, the Govern-
ment itself, and other parties, are producing with unexam-
pled rapidity, are our best aid."
«

Again: in reply to a remark made by Mr. Gid-
dings, respecting the dissolution of the Union, the
Boston Liberator says:

"Mr. Giddings says truly, that the dissolution of the Union
has long been held up as a scare-crow by the South ; but
when he adds that the friends of liberty never demanded
it, his statement is untrue, unless he means to confine it
to his political associates, who are but compromisers at
last. We demand nothing short of a dissolution, absolute
and immediate. The Union which was founded by our
fathers, was cemented by the blood of the slave, and eflected
through his immolation."'

And still further: William Lloyd Garrison, at
a Fourth of July celebration, at Farmingham,
Massachusetts, declared:

"Let us, then, to-day, rejecting as wild and chimerical all
suggestions, propositions, and contrivances for restraining
slavery in its present limits, while extending constitu-
tional protection to it in fifteen of the States, register our
pledge anew before lleaven and the world, that we will do
what in us lies to etlect the eternal overthrow of this blood-
stained Union ; tliat tlius our enslaved countrymen may

find a sure deliverance, and we may no longer be answer-
able for their blood."

The Union is to be overthrown by way of get-
ting clear of the "great sin of slavery." Mr.
J. B. Swassey, on the same occasion, said:

" In the olden times, 1 was what was called an anti-
slavery Whig; but, Mr. President, it has come to my mind,
like a conviction, that it is utterly in vain to hope that we
can live under such a Government as this,with our profes-
sions, and with our pretended love of freedom and right.
Why the thing is impossible. There cannot, in the nature
of things, be any union between the principles of liberty
and slavery. Tliere never has been any union, except by
the subjugation of the principles of liberty to those of des-
potism. For one, sir, I believe that the duty of every true
man is to take the ground of secession."

Again: Wendell Phillips, in a speech at Boston
on the 20th of January, argued that disunion was
desirable, because it would abolish slavery. He
also argued that the North would gain by dis-
union, and used the following language:

" Sacrifice everything for the Union.' God forbid! Sac-
rifice everything to keep South Carolina in it.' Rather
build a bridge of gold, and pay her toll over it. Let her
march off with banners and trumpets, and we will speed the
parting guests. Let her not stand upon the order of her
going, but go at once. Give her the forts and arsenals and
sub-treasuries, and lend her jewels of silver and gold, and
Egypt will rejoice that she has departed."

He looks upon disunion as the beg:inning of the
destruction and overthrow of the institution of
slavery. Then, when we come to talk about "al-
lies," whose allies are these gentlemen? Whose
allies are the Abolitionists of the North, if they
are not the allies of the secessionists and disun-
ionists of the South? Are they not all laboring
and toiling to accomplish the same great end, the
overthrow of this great nation of ours ? Their
object is the same. They are both employing,
to some extent, the same means. Here is Wen-
dell Phillips; here is Garrison; here is the anti-
slavery society of Massachusetts; and all, in the
very same point of view, the allies of the distin-
guished Senator from Mississippi and his coad-
jutors; all in favor of disruptitig and breaking
down this Union, with the view of destroying the
institution of slavery itself. " Allies laboring to
destroy the Government!" Who else are labor-
ing to destroy it but the disunionists and seces-
sionists of the South, and Garrison and Phillips,
and the long list that might be enumerated at the
North ? Here they stand, presenting an unbroken
front, to destroy this glorious Union, which was
made by our fathers.

Mr. President, I have alluded to this subject of
" allies " in order to show who is engaged in this
unholy and nefarious work of breaking up this
Union. We find first the run-mad Abolitionists
of the North. They are secessionists; they are
for disunion; they are for dissolution. When we
turn to the South we see the red-hot disunionists
and secessionists engaged in the same work. I
think it comes with a very bad grace from them
to talk about the " allies " of others who are try-
ing to save the Union and preserve the Constitu-
tion.

*I went back yesterday and showed that South
Carolina had held this doctrine of secession at a
very early day, a very short time after she entered
into the Articles ofConfederation, and after she had

23

entered the Union by which and through which
the independence of the country was achieved.
What else do we find at a very early day ? Go
to Massachusetts during the war of 1812, and
the Hartford convention, and there you will find
men engaged in this treasonable and unhallowed
work. Even in 1845, Massachusetts, in mani-
festing her great opposition to the annexation of
Texas to the United States, passed a resolution
resolving herself out of the Union . She seceded ;
she wenl off by her own act, because Texas was
admitted into the Union. Thus we find South
Carolina and Massachusetts taking the lead in this
secession movement. We find the Abolitionists
proper of the North shaking the right hand of
fellowship with the disunionists of the South in
this work of breaking up the Union; and yet we
hear intimations here that Senators from the South
who are not secessionists are Black Republican
allies! If I were compelled to choose either--!
would not wish to be compelled to make a choice I
— but if I were compelled to be either, having the
privilege of choosing, I would rather be a black ,
Republican than a red one. I think the one is
much more tolerable than the other. If red repub- '
licanism is ever to make its way into this coun- :
try, it is making its way in this disunion and se- ,
cession movement that is now going on; for we |
see that right along with the sentiment of seces- [
sion the reign of terror prevails. Everything is :
carried away by it, while the conservative men of
the country are waiting for the excited tempest to
pass. Itis now sweeping over the country. Every-
thing is carried by usurpation, and a reign of
terror follows along in its wake.

I am charged with being " an ally" of the Sen-
atorfrom Ohio ! I, who, from my earliest infancy,
or from the time I first comprehended principle,
down to the present time, have always stood bat-
tling for the same great principles that I contend
for now! My people know me; they have tried
me; and your little innuendoes and your little in-
directions will not alarm them, even if your infu-
riated seceding southern men dare to intimate that
I am an ally of Mr. Wade. The Senator charges
me with being " an ally;" while he and the lead-
ers of Abolitionism are uniting all their energies
to break up this gloriousUnion. I an ally ! Thank
God, I am not in alliance with Giddings, with
Phillips, with Garrison, and the long list of those
who are engaged in the work of destruction, and
in violating the Constitution of the United Slates.
So much, Mr. President, in regard to the argu-
ment about allies. I am every man's ally when
he acts upon principle. I have laid down, as the
cardinal point in my political creed, that, in all
questions that involve principle, especially where
there was doubt, I would pursue principle; and in
the pursuit of a great principle I never could reach
a wrong conclusion. If, in the pursuit of princi-
ple, in trying to reach a correct conclusion,! find
mystlf by the side of another man who is pursu-
ing the same principle, or acting upon the same
line of policy, I extend to him my assistance, and
I ask his in return.

But the Senator from Mississippi, in his reply
to me, also said:
"I was reading, a short time ago, an extract wliich re-

ferred to the time wlien ' we'— I suppose it means Tennes-
see— would take tiie position whicli it was said to be an
absurdity for Soutli Carolina to hold ; and Tennessee still
was put, in the same speech, in llie attitude ol a great ob-
jector against the exercise of the right of secession. Is
there anything in her history which tfius places hfri" Ten-
nessee, born of secession, rocked in the cradle of revolu-
tion, taking her position before she was matured, and claim-
ing to be a State because she had violently severed her con-
nection with North Carolina, and through an act of seces-
sion and revolution claimed then to be a State."

I suppose it was thought that this would be a
poser; that it would be conclusive; and as Ten-
nessee was "born of secession, rocked in the
cradle of revolution," I was estopped; that my
lips were hermetically sealed, so far as related to
anything I could give utterance to in opposition
to this heresy. When we come to examine the
history of that subject, we find the Senator has
fallen into just as great an error as he did in his
allusion to allies. Tennessee had her birth not in
secession — very far from it. The State of Frank-
land had its origin in that way. They attempted
to separate themselves from the Slate of North
Carolina. When was that.' In 1784. Peace was
made in 1783; but in 1784—1 read from Wheel-
er's History of North Carolina:

"In 1784, the General Assembly, in April, at Hillsboro',
among other acts for the relief of the General Government,
ceded her western lands, and authorized her delegation in
Congress to execute a deed, provided Congress would
accept this offer within two years.

"This act, patriotic and self-sacrificing, was worthy of
the State ; and although not then accepted by Congress,
was the real source of the civil commotion which we are
about to record."

What was that civil commotion ? The pioneers
of that country had suffered great hardships, and
I they viewed with suspicion this act of 1784. On
j the 24th of August of that year, they held a con-
vention at Jonesboro', and resolved to send a per-
\ son to Congress to urge the acceptance of the offer
I of North Carolina. "But I will read from this
I history:

j " The General Assembly of North Carolina met at New-
! born on the 22d October, 1784, and repealed the act of the
I former session, in consequence of which the convention at
' Jonesboro' broke up in confusion." * * * *
" The spirit of the people was roused. On December 4,
1784, a convention of five delegates from eacli county mei
at Jonesboro'. John Sevier was made president of this
convention. They formed a constitution for the State of
Frankland, which was to be rejected or received by another
body, ' fresh from the people,' to meet at Greenville in No-
vember, 1785. This body met at the time and place ap-
pointed ; the constitution was ratitied ; Langdon Carter was
Speaker of the Senate ; William Cage, Speaker of the
House of Commons. John Sevier was chosen Governor;
David Campbell, Joshua Gist, and John Henderson, judges
of the superior coui t. Other officers, civil and military,
were appointed.

"The General Assembly of the State of Frankland, by a
communication signed by both Speakers, informed Richard
Caswell, Esq., Governor of North Carolina, tliat the peo-
ple of the counties of Washington, Sullivan, and Greene,
had declared themselves sovereign, and independent of the
State of North Carolina.

" Governor Caswell was a soldier and a statesman. He
was not of a temper to brook such high-handed measures.
He issued, on the 25th of April, 1785, his proclamation
against this lawless thirst for power." * * * *

" Biu the State of Frankland did not heed this warning,
so properly expressed, and so dignified in its character
and tone. It proceeded to erect new counties, levy taxes,
appropriate money, Ibrin treaties with the Indians, and
exercise all the power and prerogatives of a sovereign
State." *»**-.***'

24

"The scarcity of money was severely felt. The salary
of the Governor was £200 annually; ajiidge £150; the
treasurer £40; to be paid from the treasury. The taxes
were to be paid into tlie treasury, in the circulating medium
of Franldand, such as they liad, namely : good flax linen
ten hundred, at three shillings and sixpence per yard ; good
clean beaver skins, six shillings each ; racoon and fox skins,
at one shilling and three pence ; deer skins, six shillings;
bacon, at six pence per pound; tallow, at six pence; good
whisky, at two shillings and six pence a gallon.

" This has given rise to some humor at the expense of
the State ofFrankland. It was referred to in debate inonr
House of Commons, 1827, by H. C. Jones, and in Congress
some years ago by Hon. Daniel Webster; which was re-
plied to by Hon. Hugh L. White. It was pleasantly stated
that the salaries of the Governor and judges were paid in
fox skins, and the fees of the sheriff and constables in mink
skins, and that the Governor, the sheriffs, and constables
were compelled to receive the skins at the established
price.

" Even this primitive currency was, by the ingenuity of
man, extensively counterfeited, by sewing racoon tails to
tlie opossum skins — opossum skins being worthless and
abundant, and racoon skins were valued by law at one
shilling and three pence." *****

" The Geheral Assembly of North Carolina, assembled
at Newbern, in November, 1785, passed an act to bury in
oblivion the conduct ofFrankland, provided they returned
to their allegiance, and appointed elections to be held in
the diffeient counties for members to the General Assembly
of North Carolina, and also appointed civil and military
officers to support those already appointed. The next year,
1786, presented a strange state of affairs ; two empires ex-
tended at the same time over the same territory and over
the same people.

" Courts were held by both Governments, military offi-
cers appointed by both, to exercise the same powers. John
Tipton headed the party for North Carolina, and John
Sevier the Frankland party."* * * * *

" The next year taxes were imposed by both administra-
tions; but the people most in?ioccn?h/ pretended that they
did not know to whom to pay ; so paid to neither. Thus
deprived of one of the chief means of government, the
affairs of Frankland were approaching to its end. Tipton
and Sevier were both residents of Washington county.
Sevier was a brave soldier; he had proved his valor on
King's mountain ; but he was seduced by the allurements
of office and ambition —

" The sin whereby the angels fell.' "

" He applied to Dr. Franklin for advice and support; to
the Governor (Matthews) of Georgia, and to Virginia ; from
none did he receive any aid or advantage. He realized
with fearful truth, the fable of Gay —

" The child who many fathers share,
Hath rarely known a father's care.
He who on many doth depend
Will rarely ever find a friend."

All this shows, Mr. President, that the State
ofFrankland took its origin in 1784. A govern-
ment was recognized, and it continued until Sep-
tember, 1787. The Legislature that year met at
Greenville, the very town in which I live.

"In September, 1787, the Legislature of Frankland met
for the last time at Greenville. John Menifee was Speaker
of the Senate and Charles Robinson Speakerof the House.
They authorized the election of two Representatives to
attend the Legislature of North Carolina, and one of the
judges of Frankland was elected (David Campbell) and her
Treasurer (Landon Carter) the other.

" Had the party of Sevier accepted the liberal, fair, and
just proposition of Governor (^aswi'll, in 1785, as stated
previously, how much pain and trouble would have been
spared to this country, and how much personal suffering
to himself? With all his virtues, honesty, and former pub-
lic service, he was at this time a doomed man.

" On the return of the members from tlie General Assem-
bly at Tarboro', in February, 1788, it was soon understood
that Frankland was no more.

"An execution against the estate of General Sevier had
been placed in the hands of the sheriff, and levied on his
negroes on Nolichucky river. These were removed for
safe keeping to the house of Colonel Tipton."

" Brave in his character, obstinate and headstrong, Sevier

raised one hundred and fifty men, and marched to Tip-
ton's house, on Watauga river, eight miles east of Jones-
boro'. Tipton had information of Sevier's design only time
enough to obtain the aid of some fifteen friends, who were
with him on Sevier's arrival.

" Sevier, with his troops and a small cannon, demanded
an unconditional surrender of Tipton and all in his house.
Tipton had barricaded the house ; and in reply to the un-
ceremonious demand, sent him word ' to fire, and be d — d.'
He then sent a written summons to surrender. This letter
Tipton forwarded forthwith to the colonel of the county, for
aid. This aid, through Robert and Thomas Love, was
promptly afforded. The house was watched closely. A
man by the name of Webb was killed, a woman wounded
in the shoulder, and a Mr. Vann. VVhile, from extreme
cold, Sevier's guards were at the fire, a large reinforcement
from Sullivan county, under Maxwell and Pemberton,
passed the guard, and joined the beleaguered household.
The moment the junction was formed they sallied out with
shouts ; a tremor seized the troops of Sevier, who fled in
all directions at the first fire of Tipton. Pugh, the high
sheriff of Washington, was mortally-wounded, and many
taken prisoners. Sevier himself escaped ; his two sons,
James and John, were prisoners." * * * *

'• Judge Spencer, one of the judges of the State of North
Carolina, holding court at Jonesboro', issued a bench-war-
rant against Governor Sevier for high treason, (1788.)

" In October, Colonels Tipton, Love, and others, appre-
hended Sevier, at the house of Mrs. Brown, near Jones-
boro'. Tipton was armed, and swore that ho would kill
Sevier ; and Sevier really thought he would do so. Tipton
was, however, with much exertion, pacified. Handcuffs
were placed upon Governor Sevier, and he was carried to
Jonesboro'. From thence he was carried, under strong
guard, toMorganton, in Burke county. North Carolina, and
delivered to William Morrison, the sheriff" of Burke.

" As he passed through Burke, General Charles McDow-
ell and Gcncfal Joseph McDowell (the latter who was with
him in the battle of King's Mountain, and fought by his
side) became his securities for a few days, until he could
see some friends. He returned punctually, and upon his
own responsibility the sheriff allowed him time to procure
bail. His two sons, with friends, came to Morganton
privately, and under their escort he escaped.

" Thus the career of the first and last Governor of Frank-
land terminated. But with all his defects, John Sevier had
m'any virtues. He was fearless to a fault; kind to his
friends ; and hospitable to all. This gave him great weight
among the people ; and although in the General Assembly
of North Carolina, (Fayetteville,) in 1788, general oblivion
and pardon were extended to all concerned in the late re-
volt, John Sevier was especially excepted in the act, and
debarred from all offices of trust, honor, or profit.

" The next year (1789) so great a favorite with the people
was Sevier, that he was elected from Greene, to represent
that county in the Senate of the General Assembly of North
Carolina. He appeared at Fayetteville at the time appointed
for the meeting of the Legislature, (second Monday of No-
vember.)

"Such was the sense of his worth, or his contrition for
the past, that the Legislature passed early, an act repealing
the section disqualifying him from any office ; and on taking
the oath of allegiance, he was allowed his seat. Tims were
the difliculties settled.

" North Carolina had ever been willing to allow her
daughter to set up for herself when of lawful age and under
proper restrictions. Cherishing this feeling, she was never
unjust towards her fair and lovely offspring.

" On the 25th of February, 1790, as authorized by a pre-
vious act of the General Assembly, passed in the year 1789,
Samuel Johnston and Benjamin Hawkins, Senators in Con-
gress, executed a deed to the United States in the words of
the cession act; and on the 2d of April of that year. Con-
gress accepted the deed, and Tennessee was born.

" By proclamation, dated September 1, 1790, Governor
Martin announced that the Secretary of State for the Uni-
ted States had transmitted to him a copy of the act of Qon-
gress, accf'pting the cession of North Carolina for this dis-
trict of the western territory, and the inhabitants of said
district ' would take due notice thereof, and govern them-
selves accordingly.' "

John Sevier was brave and patriotic, a man
loved by the people; but he had fallen into this
error of secession or separation from the State of

25

North Carolina that I have called your attention
to here in the history of that Stale We find that
this doctrine of secession could not even be sus-
tained by him, with his great popularity and with
the attachment the people had for him. Instead
of Tennessee having her origin or her birth in
secession, the precise reverse is true. The State of
Frankland had its birth in an attempt atdisutiion
and was rocked to death in the cradle of secession;
and its greatdefender and founder atthat time, not-
withstanding his great popularity and the attach- [
ment the people had for him, was lodged in irons.
That is wnere secession carried him, with all his
popularity, with all his patriotism, with all the at-
tachment the people had for him. Yes, sir, this
nefarious, this blighting, this withering doctrine |
of secession ended by placing that distinguished
man in irons. 1

What next occurred ? North Carolina passed
a law for general pardon and oblivion for all those
that had been engaged in this movement, with the
exception of this great man, John Sevier. His ,
name is even now venerated in the section of the
country where I live; but, with all his talents and
popularity, this inftimous, this diabolical, this hell-
born and hell-bound doctrine of secession carried
him into chains. The State of Frankland had
expired, rocked to death in the cradle of seces-
sion, and he went back to Greene county, and
was elected a member of the Legislature of North !
Carolina. In passing this general oblivion and i
pardon, he was made an exception; and he was I
not permitted to take his seat in the Legislature
until the exception was removed. It was removed ,
and he took his seat in the Legislature of North
Carolina. Frankland had expired; it was no more;
and yet we see the odious weight that was heaped \
upon him by this nefarious doctrine of secession. :

Then what follows, Mr. President? When we ,
turn to the history, we find that North Carolina
then made her cession act, completed it in 1790,
and ceded the territory to the United States. A
territorial government was established. General
Washington himself appointed the first officers
in the Territory, which was then styled " the
Territory southwest of the river Ohio." In 1794,
the Council or Legislature of thatTerritory elected
James White the first delegate to the Congress of
the United States from the Territory southwest of
the river Ohio — not Frankland or Franklin, for
that is numbered with the things that were, but
are not. Even with the popularity of the name
of Dr. Franklin, it was consigned to oblivion, and
now sleeps with the things that were. In 1794,
the delegate to represent the Territory made his
appearance here, and took his seat. In 1796, the
constitution v/as formed; and then it was that Ten-
nessee began her existence. The peace was made
in 1783, and in 1796 Tennessee formed her consti-
tution and applied for admission into this Union.
Then it was thatTennessee was spoken into exist-
ence. She did not pass through this ordeal of
secession; this probation of disunion. She germ-
inated upon proper principles. The Territory was
first organized by Congress after the death of the
organization called Frankland; and in 1796, the
people of Tennessee formed their constitution, and
were admitted into the Union as a State. And, sir,

who came into the Union with her when she was
admitted as a State? Andrew Jackson. Itmayhaye
been that his early knowledge of the country, it
may have been that his early information upon the
subject, made him understand and appreciate ever
afterwards the value of the Union. When Ten-
nessee was ushered into thisfamily of States, asan
equal member of the Confederacy, General Jack-
son took his seat as her Representative. The Sen-
ator from Mississippi said that Tennessee was
" born in secession; rocked in the cradle of revo-
lution." Sir, she has many fond recollections of
the Revolution ; but with all her revolutionary char-
acter, her people have never attempted secession.
General Jackson first represented her in Congress
when she came into the Union; she brought him
to the notice of the people of the United States as a
public man. In 1833, when an attempt somewhat
similar to the present was made, he was President
of the United States; and it is unnecessary for me
to relate what his views of secession were then.
It is not necessary for me to refer to the acts of
General Jackson in 1833. And now, sir, not in-
tending to disparage others, but to give utterance
to my conscientious belief, 1 must say that if such
a man as Andrew Jackson were President of the
United States at the present time, before this mo-
ment steps would have been taken which would
have preserved us a united people without the
sheddingof blood, without making war. I believe
that if Andrew Jackson were President of the
United States, this glorious Union of ours would
still be intact. Perhaps it might be jarred a little
in some places, but not sufficiently to disturb the
harmony and general concord of the whole. That
is my opinion. I do not say it to disparage oth-
ers; but I believe that this would have been the
case, if he had been President, pursuing the policy
which I feel certain he would have pursued in
such an emergency.

Tennes.see came into the Union in 1796. She
was the third State that entered the Confederacy
after the old thirteen ratified the Constitution.
She was in this Union before Alabama, before
Mississippi, before Louisiana, before Florida had
an existence. There was a Union then, and she
was in it. She has been in it ever since; and she
has continued to contribute her money, her men,
and her blood, to the defense of the flag of the
Union ; and though these other States may go out,
I trust in God that she will still remain in the po-
sition she occupied before they were spoken into
existence. We have been told that the Union is
broken up — that it is already dissolved. Why,
sir, according to the Constitution, nine States
formed the Government; and provision was made
for taking in new States. Taking in a State or
taking out a State does not disturb the Union. It
was a Union before the State came in; it is a Union
after it goes out. We got along very well before
these States came in ; and where is the great injury
now to result to Tennessee because they propose
to go out?

I took occasion, in my former remarks, to call
the attention of the Senate, and of my constituents
to the extent that I have the honor to represent
them, to the kind of government that was likely
to be formed by the seceding States, and the coun-

26

try they might acquire after they did secede. In
relation to this, the Senator from Mississippi said:

" But the Senator found somewhere, I believe in Georgia,
a newspaper article wliich sug<;ested the advantages of a
constitutional monarchy. Does the Senator believe there
is any considerable number of people in any of the States
who favor the establishment of a constitutional monarchy .'"

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Iverson] felt
called upon to say something in the same con-
nection. He said:

"As allusion has been made by the Senator from Missis-
sippi to an article which appeared in a paper in my own
town, and about which a good deal of noise has been made,
and which was referred to by the Senator from Tennessee,
in his celebrated speech, the other day, as evidence that
there was a party in the South in favor of a constitutional
monarchy" —

He went on to state that that idea was suggested
in some paper, he could not exactly tell how, but
it was not by the editor, and it did not amount to
much. I did not refer to a single paper; but I made
various extracts from newspapers and speeches,
simply as surface indications, as symptoms of
what lay below, and what was intended to be the
result. 1 referred to the Charleston Mercury; I
referred to other papers; I referred to the speeches
of distinguished men, some of them leaders in this
movement. Is it not apparent, now, that unless
the public mind is aroused, unless the people are
put on the alert, thei-e is a design to establish a
government upon the principles of a close cor-
poration .' Can any one that has the least sagacity )
be so unobservant as not to see what is going on
in the South .' It is apparent to all. They seem !
to unite in setting out with the proposition that j
the new confederacy shall exclude every State
which is not slaveholding, for the reason that those
States which are interested in slaves should have |
the exclusive control and management of them.
Here is a great family of States, some free and
some slave, occupying, in one sense, the same
relation to each other that individuals in tlie com- !
munity do to one another. The proposition is I
started to form a government of States exclu-
sively interested in slaves. That excludes all the '
free States. Is the argument good? Has not
slavery been secure heretofore in the Union with
non-slaveholding States; and will not our geo-
graphical and physical position be just the same
after the present Union is dissolved ? Where does
the ai-gument carry us.' We must have a confed-
ei'acy now composed of slave States exclusively.
When we have excluded the free States, and we
come to make a new government, does not the
same argument apply that we must have a gov-
ernment lo be controlled and administered by that
description of persons among us who are exclu-
sively interested in slaves.' If you cannot trust
a free State in the confederacy, can you trust a
non-slaveholder in a slaveholding State to control
the question of slavery .' Where does your argu-
ment carry you ? ^/e see where they ai-e drift-
ing; and, as a faithful sentinel upon the watch-
tower, I try to notify the people and sound the
tocsin of alarm. If this idea be not carried out,
it will be because the public feeling, the public
opinion, is aroused against it.

I alluded yesterday to the fact that the freemen
of the State of South Carolina have not been per-

I mitted to vote for a President since it was a State.
There is a great terror and dread of the capacity
! of the people to govern themselves. In South
I Carolina, when the ordinance was passed to with-
draw from the Union, did the convention trust the
people to )>ass their judgment upon it.' Were
they consulted.' Did they indorse it.' Have they
passed theirjudgmentupon it to this day.' Taking
the language of Mr. Boyce as an index of their
feeling, I have no ntiore doubt than I have of my
existence that if this reign of terror subsides, and
the hearts of the people of South Carolina can be
gotten at, it will be found that a majority of them
disapprove and repudiate what has been done
there. What do we find in the State of Georgia .'
There the proposition was moved to submit the
ordinance to the people; and were the people con-
sulted.' The vote was 138 to 116, I think. It
shows a great division. Did they submit it to the
people.' Oh, no. I know something of the people
of the State of Georgia; and I believe this day, if
that seceding ordinance could be submitted to the
voting population of Georgia, and the question be
fully canvassed and fairly understood, they would
repudiate and put it down. Go to Florida: were
the people consulted there.' Not at all. Look to
Alabama; look to the arguments made there in
the convention. It was said, our power is ample;
we ntiust consummate this thing, and not let the
people pass upon it. Louisiana refused to refer
the matter to the people. The people have not
been consulted. A reign of terror has been insti-
tuted. States have been called upon to make large
appropriations of money to buy arms and muni-
tions of war; for what end.' The idea has been:
" we can, almost with the speed of lightning, run
States out of the Union without consulting the
people; and then, if they dare resist, we have got
an army, we have got the money to awe them
mto submission." These gentlemen are very fear-
ful of coercion, exceedingly alarmed at the word
" coerce;" but when you attempt to interpose and
stop their career, they do not know of any other
tenti but coercion. Look at the dispatch which
Governor Pickens sent to Mississippi:

Charleston, January 19, 1831.

Judge Magratli and myself have sent four telegraphs to
you. Please urge Mississippi to send delegates to the Mont-
gomery meeting of States, at as early a day as possible —
say 4th of February — to form imjncdiatebj a strong provis-
ional government. It is the only thing to prevent war, and
l<;t that convention eleclimmediately a commander-in-chief
for the seceding States. You may as well return, at least
as far as Montgomery. F. VV. TICKENS.

To Hon. A. Burt Jackson.

South Carolina has a military establishment,
with officers ajipointed, and the taxes necessary
to support them now are grinding her people to
the dust; but she expects in a very short time to
transfer that military establishment, with her offi-
cers, to the southern confederacy that is to be es-
tablished; and I suppose the great object in getting
the leader appointed at once is that they may be
able by military force to awe the people into sub-
mission. Have we not seen that nine regiments
have been authorized to be raised in Mississippi,
and a distinguished Senator, who occupied a seat
on this floor a short time since, made the major
general.' No doubt, when the scheme is consum-

27

mated and carried out, when the military organi-
zation is complete, if the people offer to resist,
they will be subdued and awed, or driven into
submission at the point of the bayonet. Some
of these gentry are very much afraid of the peo-
ple.

Why, sir, a proposition was even started in my
own State, to raise sixteen regiments; for what.'
With whom are we at war? Is anybody attack-
ing us? No. Do we want to coerce anybody?
No. What do we want with sixteen regiments?
And it was proposed to appropriate $250,000 to
sustain them. There is a wonderful alarm at the
idea of coercing the seceding States; great dread
in reference to the power of this Federal Govern-
ment to secure obedience to its laws, and espe-
cially in reference to making war upon one of the
States; but the public pro])erty can be taken, your
flag can be fired upon, your ships driven out of
port, yourgallant officer, with a few men, penned
up in a little fort to subsist as best they may. So
far as the officer to whom 1 have just alluded is
concerned, I will give utterance to the feelings of
my heart when I express my profound approba-
tion of his conduct. He was put there to defend
the flag of his country. He was there not as an
intruder. He was there in possession of the prop-
erty owned by the United States, not to menace,
not to insult, not to violate rights, but simply to
defend the flag and honor of his country, and take
care of the public property; and because he re-
tired from a position where he could have been
captured, where the American flagcould have been
struck and made to trail in the dust, and the Pal-
metto banner substituted, because he, obeying the
impulses of a gallant and brave heart, took choice
of another position; acting upon principles of hu-
manity, not injuring others, but seeking to pro-
tect his own command from being sacrificed and
destroyed, he is condemned and repudiated, and
his action is sought to be converted into a menace
of war. Has it come to this, that the Government
of the United States cannot even take care of its
own property, that your vessels must be fired
upon, that yourflag must be struck, and still you
are alarmed at coercion: and because agallant offi-
cer has taken possession of a fort where he cannot
very well be coerced, a terrible cry is raised, and
war is to be made ?

I was speaking of the proposition brought for-
ward in my own State to raise sixteen regiments.
Sir, as far back as the battle of King's mountain ,
and in every war in which the rights of the people
have been invaded, Tennessee, God bless her, has
stood by that glorious flag, which was carried by
Washington and followed by the gallant patriots
and soldiers of the Revolution, even as the blood
trickled from their feet as they passed over the ice
and snow; and under that flag, not only at home,
but abroad, her sons have acquired honor and dis-
tinction, in connection with citizens of the other
States of the Union. She is not yet prepared to
band with outlaws, and make war upon that flag
under which she has won laurels. Whom are
we going to fight? Who is invading Tennessee ?
Conventions are got up; a reign of terror is inau-
gurated; and if, by the influence of a subsidized
and mendacious press, an ordinance taking the

State out of the Confederacy can be extorted , those
who make such propositions expect to have our
army ready, to have their bands equipped, to have
their pretorian divisions; then they will tell the
people that they must carry the ordinance into
effect, and join a southern confederacy, whether
they will or not; they shall be lashed on to the car
of South Carolina, who entertains no respect for
them, but threatens their institution of slavery
unless they comply with her terms. Will Ten-
nessee take such a position as that? I cannot be-
lieve it; I never will believe it; and if an ordinance
of secession should be passed by that Slate under
these circumstances, and an attempt should be
made to force the people out of the Union, as has
been done in some other States, without first
having submitted that ordinance to the people for
their ratification or rejection, I tell the Senate and
the American people that there are many in Ten-
nessee whose dead bodies will have to be trampled
over beforeit can be consummated. [Applause
in the galleries.] The Senator from Mississippi
referred to the flag of his country; and I will read
what he said, so that I may not be accused of mis-
representing him:

" It may be pardoned to me, sir, who, in my very boy-
hood, was given to the mihtaiy service, and wiio liave fol-
lowed that flag under tropical suns, and over northern
snows, if I here express the deep sonow which always
overwhelms me when I think of turning from the flag I
have followed so long, for which I have suffered in ways it
does not become rae to speak of; feeling that henceforth it
is not to be the banner I will hail with Uie rising sun, and
greet as the sun goes down ; the banner which, by day and
by night, I am ready to follow. But God, who knows the
hearts of men, will judge between you and us, at whose
door lies the responsibility of this."

There is no one in the United States who is
more willing to do justice to the distinguished
Senator from Mississippi than myself; and when
1 consider his early education; when I look at his
gallant services, finding him first in the military
school of the United States, educated by his Gov-
ernment, taught the .science of war at the expense
of his country — taught to love the principles of
the Constitution; afterwards entering its service,
fighting beneath the stars and stripes to which he
has so handsomely alluded, winning laurels that
are green and imperishable, and bearing upon
his person scars that are honorable; some of which
have been won at home; others of which have
been won inaforeign clime, and upon otherfields —
I would be the last man to pluck a feather from
his cap or a single gem from the chaplet that en-
circles his brow. But when I consider his early
associations; when I remember that he was nur-
tured by this Government; that he fought for this
Government; that he won honors under the flag
of this Government, I cannot understand how he
can be willing to hail another banner, and turn
from that of his country, under which he has
won laurels and received honors. This is a matter
of taste, however; but it seems to me that, if I
could not unsheath my sword in vindication of the
flag of my country, its glorious stars and stripes,
I would return the sword to its scabbard; I would
never sheathe it in the bosom of my mother;
never! never! Sir, my own feelings in reference
to that flag are such as must have filled the heart
of that noble son of South Carolina, Joel R. Poin-

28

sett, when, nearly thirty years ago, in an address I
to the people of Charleston, he declared: ; j

" Wherever I have been, I have been proud of being a 1 1
citizen of this Republic, and to the remotest corners of the 1 1
earth have walked erect and secure under tliat banner
which our opponents would tear down and trample under !
foot. I was in Mexico when the town was taken by as- !
sault. The house of the American embassador was then,
as it ousht to be, the refuge ofthe distressed and persecuted ; , I
it was pointed out to the infuriated soldiery as a place filled | j
with their enemies. They refused to attack. My onlyde- ; j
fense was the flag of my country, and it was thrown out at '
the instant that hundreds of muskets were leveled at us. ;
Mr. Mason — a braver man never stood by his friend in the I
hour of danger — and myself placed ourselves beneath its [
waving folds ; and the attack was suspended. We did not ' [
blanch, for we felt strong in the protecting arm of this j
mighty Republic. We told them that the flag that waved
over us was the banner of that nation to whose example '
they owed their liberties, and to whose protection they '.
were indebted for their safety. The scene changed as by
enchantment; those men who were on the point of attack-
ing and massacreing the inhabitants, cheered the flag of our
country, and placed sentinels to protect it from outrage, j

" Fellow-citizens, in such a moment as that, would it i
have been any protection to me and mine to have pro-
claimed myself a Carolinian .' Should I have been here to '
tell you this tale if I had hung out the palmetto and single ■
star.' Be assured that, to be respected abroad, we must
maintain our place in the Union."

Sir, I intend to stand by that flag, and by the '
Union of which it is the emblem. I agree with
Mr. A. H. Stephens, of Georgia, " that this Gov-,
ernment of our fathers, with all its defects, comes ]
nearer the objects of all good governments than
any other on the face of the earth."

I have made allusions to the various Senators
who have attacked me, in vindication of myself.
I have been attacked on all hands by some five or ,
six, and maybe attacked again. All I ask is,
that, in making these attacks, they meet my po-
sitions, answer my argumcHts, refute my facts.
I care not for the number that may have attacked
me; I care not how many may come hereafter.
Feeling that I am in the right, thatargument, that
fact, that truth are on my side, I place them all at
defiance. Come one, come all; for I feel, in the
words of the great dramatic poet:

" Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just ;
And he but naked, though locked up in steel, ',

Whose conscience with [treason] is corrupted."

I have been told, and I have heard it repeated, I
that this Union is gone. It has been said in this i
Chamber that it is in the cold sweat of death; !
that, in fact, it is really dead, and merely lying

in state waiting for the funeral obsequies to be
performed. If this be so, and the war that has
been made upon me in consequence of advocat-
ing the Constitution and the Union is to result
in my overthrow and in my destruction; and that
flag, that glorious flag, the emblem of the Union,
which was borne by Washington through a seven
years' struggle, shall be struck from the Capitol
and trailed in the dust — when this Union is in-
terred, I want no more honorable winding sheet
than that brave old flag, and no more glorious
grave than to be interred in the tomb of the Union.
[Applause in the galleries.] For it I have stood;
for it I will continue to stand; I care not whence
the blows come; and some will find, before this
contest is over, that while there are blows to be
given, there will be blows to receive; and that,
while others can thrust, there are some who can
parry. God preserve my country from the deso-
lation that is threatening her, from treason and
traitors !

" Is there not some chosen curse,
Some hidden thunder in the stores of heaven.
Red with uncommon wrath, to blast the man
Who owes his greatness to his country's ruinf"

[Applause in the galleries.]
In conclusion, Mr. President, I make an appeal
to the conservative men of all parties. You see
the posture of public affairs; you see the condition
of the country; you see along the line of battle the
various points of conflict; you see the struggle
which the Union men have to maintain in many
of the States. You ought to know and feel what
is necessary to sustain those who, in their hearts,
desire the preservation of this Union of States.
Will you sit with stoic indifference, and see those
who are willing to stand by the Constitution and
uphold the pillars of the Government driven away
by the raging surges that are now sweeping over
some portions of the country.' As conservative
men, as patriots, as men who desire the preser-
vation of this great, this good, this unparalleled
} Government, I ask you to save the country; or
j let the propositions be submitted to the people,
i that the heart of the nation may respond to them.
I I have an abiding confidence in the intelligence,
! the patriotism, and the integrity of the great mass
'. of the people; and I feel in my own heart that, if
this suDJect could begot before them, they would
settle the question, and the Union of these States
would be preserved. [Applause in the galleries.]

ktA

m

v' .•^L'* <^*

'bV"

F^ ol* -tit <•

'oK

o^ \;*:?^«*^^^^; %;'T:?^-;/ /^^^/^tt,^*,^-^'

".^0^

•"* -iV^ ^'^-♦^ '*.To' .0'

°o

^^^-J-

%'^^^'\<f V--'\<^ ^^.'^i^'-J" \--f^-r''

•»fev*

V .JP'-*. -."

.o-.-iv-.-^ .v<*.g^..\ .-»?^:k>-;s'^* «^\--*-"-

<0^ t^l"""

'• --^...^^ ^*

07 "^ o

'oK

'^O^

'oK

• •«

:-?;*

<> *-Tvr^

^'=U,

.^^

A^

WERT
BOOKBINDING

Cfaniv.lle Pi

-^